What do you think?
Rate this book
The Handbook of Scholarly Writing and Publishing
Focusing on writing for publication, The Handbook of Scholarly Writing and Publishing discusses the components of a manuscript, types of manuscripts, and the submission process. It shows how to craft scholarly papers and other writing suitable for submission to academic journals. The handbook covers how to develop writing skills by offering guidance on becoming an excellent manuscript reviewer and outlining what makes a good review, and includes advice on follow-through with editors, rejection, and rewrites and re-submittals.
- GenresWritingNonfiction
361 pages, Kindle Edition
First published February 9, 2011
28 people are currently reading
87 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
December 9, 2022
A helpful book on understanding the world of scholarly writing. If you are interested in getting published for academic papers or manuscripts, this makes for a helpful companion.
August 21, 2017
Excellent reference book. Particularly appreciated the chapter covering how to formulate a problem statement.
May 7, 2024
Quotes:
1. As a graduate student, I knew publishing was important, but I had no idea how one went about doing this. So I made it known to the faculty members in my program area that I wanted to learn how to write for publication.
2. Working with coauthors, I have learned tips on using computer programs or tools on standard programs more efficiently. Each draft was named using the date and version number. This pattern continued until the manuscript was finished in a month. We met together two other times to read through a version or discuss specific issues.
3. Through scholarly writing, the existing knowledge base is replenished with new insights, ideas, models, and theories. This process facilitates further dialogue and serves as as springboard for future research.
4. Before approaching potential mentors, learn about their work. Read their publications, and review their personal websites.
5. Preparing a scholarly manuscript is somewhat like putting together a jigsaw puzzle. A few pieces might easily snap into place. However, when your manuscript does not take shape quickly, you may become overwhelmed, frustrated and blocked.
6. Students often mimic academic writers rather than express their own voices. Voice refers to the way we reveal ourselves to others when we write. Being scholars means approaching everything with curiosity, continuously questioning what we rea,d making new connections, and looking for gaps in the knowledge base. If what has already been written and published could never be challenged, eventually the scholarly flame would be extinguished.
7. Reading is the first step toward writing. Scholarly writing usually includes an account that synthesizes and challenges previous research and puts forward new ideas. When reading, you need to pay attention to at least three different things: 1. topic matter 2. quality of the claims made about that information 3. the manner in which the claims are presented.
8. To summarize, in learning to become an expert scholarly writer, you have two tasks: to evaluate others' arguments and to develop your own adequately warranted argument.
9. "Writing with no voice is dead, mechanical, faceless. It lacks any sound. Writing with no voice may be saying something true, important, or new; it may be logically organized; it may even be a work of genius. But it is as though the words came through some kind of mixer rather than being uttered by a person."
10. By removing the first person ("I"), a writer leaves room for a reader to get closer to what the writer is saying without using the writer as the mediator between the two.
11. Too many quotes and the writer gets lost in the cacophony of voices; too few and the work becomes an unsubstantiated monologue.
12. We have seen firsthand that many authors do not adequately describe the problem in a way that suggests it is indeed compelling.
13. "All well-written manuscripts have three characteristics in common: (1) an introduction that 'sells' the study; (2) tight logic, clarity, and conciseness throughout all sections; and (3) a creative and insightful Discussion and Conclusions section.
14. A quality literature review should not just reflect or replicate previous research and writing on the topic under review, but should lead to new productive work and represent knowledge construction on the part of the writer.
15. [qualitative manuscript] The method section is divided into six subsections: 1. conceptual framework 2. sample 3. data collection 4. data analysis 5. integrity measures and 6. data management.
16. The purpose of the implications section is for the author to respond to the So What? question. The response to that question is usually organized as implications for practice, research and policy.
17. Poor organization contributes to up to one-third (34 percent) of the manuscript rejection rate.
18. Good quantitative research has three basic characteristics regardless of the topic: consistency among the components, a logical trail of evidence, and transparency, which is a clear presentation of how the data were selected, collected, coded, analyzed, and interpreted.
19. Ex post facto is a design which has an independent variable that cannot be manipulated; since the independent variable cannot be manipulated, one cannot legitimately assume causation and can make statements only about relationships among the variables, especially within a single study. There are three types of ex post facto research: ex post facto research without hypotheses, ex post facto research with hypotheses, and ex post facto research with alternative hypotheses.
1. As a graduate student, I knew publishing was important, but I had no idea how one went about doing this. So I made it known to the faculty members in my program area that I wanted to learn how to write for publication.
2. Working with coauthors, I have learned tips on using computer programs or tools on standard programs more efficiently. Each draft was named using the date and version number. This pattern continued until the manuscript was finished in a month. We met together two other times to read through a version or discuss specific issues.
3. Through scholarly writing, the existing knowledge base is replenished with new insights, ideas, models, and theories. This process facilitates further dialogue and serves as as springboard for future research.
4. Before approaching potential mentors, learn about their work. Read their publications, and review their personal websites.
5. Preparing a scholarly manuscript is somewhat like putting together a jigsaw puzzle. A few pieces might easily snap into place. However, when your manuscript does not take shape quickly, you may become overwhelmed, frustrated and blocked.
6. Students often mimic academic writers rather than express their own voices. Voice refers to the way we reveal ourselves to others when we write. Being scholars means approaching everything with curiosity, continuously questioning what we rea,d making new connections, and looking for gaps in the knowledge base. If what has already been written and published could never be challenged, eventually the scholarly flame would be extinguished.
7. Reading is the first step toward writing. Scholarly writing usually includes an account that synthesizes and challenges previous research and puts forward new ideas. When reading, you need to pay attention to at least three different things: 1. topic matter 2. quality of the claims made about that information 3. the manner in which the claims are presented.
8. To summarize, in learning to become an expert scholarly writer, you have two tasks: to evaluate others' arguments and to develop your own adequately warranted argument.
9. "Writing with no voice is dead, mechanical, faceless. It lacks any sound. Writing with no voice may be saying something true, important, or new; it may be logically organized; it may even be a work of genius. But it is as though the words came through some kind of mixer rather than being uttered by a person."
10. By removing the first person ("I"), a writer leaves room for a reader to get closer to what the writer is saying without using the writer as the mediator between the two.
11. Too many quotes and the writer gets lost in the cacophony of voices; too few and the work becomes an unsubstantiated monologue.
12. We have seen firsthand that many authors do not adequately describe the problem in a way that suggests it is indeed compelling.
13. "All well-written manuscripts have three characteristics in common: (1) an introduction that 'sells' the study; (2) tight logic, clarity, and conciseness throughout all sections; and (3) a creative and insightful Discussion and Conclusions section.
14. A quality literature review should not just reflect or replicate previous research and writing on the topic under review, but should lead to new productive work and represent knowledge construction on the part of the writer.
15. [qualitative manuscript] The method section is divided into six subsections: 1. conceptual framework 2. sample 3. data collection 4. data analysis 5. integrity measures and 6. data management.
16. The purpose of the implications section is for the author to respond to the So What? question. The response to that question is usually organized as implications for practice, research and policy.
17. Poor organization contributes to up to one-third (34 percent) of the manuscript rejection rate.
18. Good quantitative research has three basic characteristics regardless of the topic: consistency among the components, a logical trail of evidence, and transparency, which is a clear presentation of how the data were selected, collected, coded, analyzed, and interpreted.
19. Ex post facto is a design which has an independent variable that cannot be manipulated; since the independent variable cannot be manipulated, one cannot legitimately assume causation and can make statements only about relationships among the variables, especially within a single study. There are three types of ex post facto research: ex post facto research without hypotheses, ex post facto research with hypotheses, and ex post facto research with alternative hypotheses.
July 7, 2020
A useful tool
November 6, 2012
Very well-written and researched--an excellent guide to scholarly writing in the social sciences. Its social science focus is why I gave it three stars, however--it seemed to promise a wider net for humanities writers as well, and didn't deliver at all. Still, a few articles will be useful for an upcoming research & methods seminar I'm teaching.
July 16, 2014
Skipping only a few chapters, I found this handbook a straightforward and accessible guide. Clear directions, helpful advice, and basic steps constitute its many suggestions, and if some of the material is rather basic, the repetition should indicate the importance of the suggestions. Lots to learn from The Handbook.
August 26, 2014
This is an insightful collection of work that provides the nuts and bolts on how to produce academic pieces for publication. I read this book to get a better understanding on how to write scholarly work and it did that and more. Could be used as a graduate textbook and should be required for anyone entering into the publishing world.
January 17, 2013
For early career researchers and academic authors, this is a basic guide to scholarly publishing. I would recommend sharing this with doctoral students within their first or second semester, and it can even be used to support writing groups and discussions.
November 29, 2012
the advices are okay.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews