Editing Academic Papers

I've written more than 50 articles in HBR, MIT Sloan Review, S+B, and others. Here's what I do to review and edit my work; it might help as you write articles or important Board/investor/stakeholder papers. The last thing you want to do is submit work that feels half-finished; it damages your reputation with the editor/colleague/sponsor. If they don't pick it up, somebody else will when it's shared more widely. Get ready to respond, and amend. Here's how to strengthen your article/paper in your final edits: - Do a spell check. So many people don't. - Read it out loud. Simplify it if it's hard to read, especially if you need more than a breath per sentence. - Summarise the main point in less than 2 sentences. Is it memorable? - Check for balance; long intros are dull, short conclusions feel like a missed opportunity to encourage action. - Review the title and opening paragraph. How well does it grab your attention? - Work through the evidence, examples, and illustrations. How well do they substantiate and visualise your points? - Look for the weakest parts (e.g. logic, structure, distinctiveness). What would your biggest critic to say to you after they read it; I think of specific people, past and present, as I do this! - Consider what somebody you admire in the field would say if they read it. Would they rate your work and respect you? - Think about whether you could use the advice in your own practice - in your next session with client, with your leadership team. What do you do to ensure your work is at its best before you finalise it? #strategy #leadership #impact #highstakes #writing Photo: excerpt from my writing page on my website (link below).

Two decades ago I learned One Weird Trick for editing your own writing. Edit **from the end to the beginning of your document**, paragraph by paragraph. I still use it and it still surprises me how well it works. When I get my students to do it, it often amazes them. Try it! Why does it work so well? At least three reasons. A simple one is that you've probably looked at the beginning of your document way more often than the end, so back-to-front editing distributes attention more evenly. When we read front to back, our brains predict what comes next, smoothing over gaps and mistakes. That's especially true with our own writing because we're so familiar with the content — and because many of us hate reading our own writing! Back-to-front editing forces the brain to work more, so we notice more. And it's more fun. And finally, especially in academia, a lot of writing is unnecessarily complicated. That wouldn't be a problem if the reader progressed linearly through the text, maintaining a perfect memory and understanding of everything they've read so far. Back-to-front editing helps us see how jarring the text is to a human reader. The best way to edit your writing is to have someone else do it. The second best way is to put it away for a few weeks before editing it, so the text isn't fresh in your mind. Back-to-front editing is always worthwhile, but especially when the first two options aren't available. I first posted this on Twitter many years ago, before I was on LinkedIn. Many editors confirmed in response that this trick is well known among them. Too bad it isn't more widely known — it shouldn't be only professional editors who benefit from it! Some of the other suggestions: reading your writing out loud (can confirm), having text-to-speech read your text out loud (makes sense), and even changing the font so that it doesn't look as familiar (whoa!) I also learned from the responses that the same thing works for music and even for art—holding a painting upside down lets you spot problems. It’s obvious in retrospect but still awesome that disrupting familiar mental patterns is such an effective and general life hack!

This week one of my main goals has been to conduct a final review of a paper prior to journal submission - thus I thought it would be helpful to do a short post about the mental checklist I run through when submitting a paper. (This is a first submission to the target journal, not a submission of a revision; and applies primarily to empirical papers.) 1) Carefully review the title and abstract. Are both informative and accurate? Does the abstract meet word limits (usually 100 or 150 words, depending on the journal)? Note that any errors in the abstract make a hugely negative first impression. Check it again! 2) Check the bibliographic compilation. Careful copy-editing of every entry is not usually necessary at this stage (if you want to do this, AI tools can help) but ensure that there are no missing references, "ADD REFERENCE HERE" notes, "???" compilations in Latex, etc. 3) Review the footnotes. Often, footnotes accumulate during writing as a parking lot for extra notes that someone may think are important or wants to remember. Pruning of footnotes is wise at this stage. Longer or more complex background information is often more appropriately placed in an appendix (where it is more clearly separate, and less distracting) compared to a footnote. 4) Review the exhibits and the notes. Does every exhibit have appropriate notes that are complete and readable? Are the exhibit titles logical, clear, and of generally similar structure? Different people have different preferences, but it is not wise, for example, to have one table named "Results" and one named "Robustness check: Alternate construction of the roads variable." They should be roughly similar in length and structure. A reader who goes straight to the exhibits and reads them alone should be able to understand them and understand the primary story of the paper. 5) Review, quickly, the section and subsection titles. Again, preferences differ - there is no one structure of a paper that is always preferable - but ensure that the titles are logical and internally coherent. 6) Review the acknowledgments and ensure that funders, partners, and others are appropriately acknowledged. If original data was collected, ensure that information about ethical approvals and any pre-registrations is provided (I prefer to provide this in the main text but some provide it an acknowledgments footnote.) 7) Return to the journal requirements and note if there are any other required documents (conflict of interest statements, etc.) Cover letters are generally optional at economics journals and if optional, I usually do not provide them; as editor, I only scan them quickly. The primary goal of a cover letter should be to convey information other than "this is a paper about X", information that can be gleaned from the abstract. For example, if the analysis uses proprietary data, or if there is some important information about the composition of the team. Good luck with your submissions!

8 things that I do to edit my research manuscripts as an award-winning researcher: ✅ CARVE OUT SHORT PERIODS FOR EDITING Good editing requires focused energy. It’s helpful to edit over multiple, short periods to maintain focus. So, find 30 to 60-minute periods in your day that you can dedicate to the editing process. Once this time is over, stop and schedule another editing phase for a later date. ✅ PRINT OUT A PHYSICAL COPY OF THE MANUSCRIPT Reduce distractions in the editing phase by having a physical copy of the manuscript. Doing so helps to increase focus on the content by limiting computer interruptions. An alternative is to edit the manuscript on a tablet. Either way, making physical edits with a pen and paper can be beneficial. ✅ READ YOUR WRITING OUT LOUD You can hear bad grammar or awkward phrasing easier than you can see it. Additionally, if you find yourself running out of breath while reading a sentence, it may be that it’s a run-on. This simple step will help you to understand how your audience will perceive and interpret your writing. ✅ FOCUS ON ONE LINE AT A TIME Treat each sentence as a standalone piece of the editing phase. Avoid glossing over your writing by highlighting each sentence or using a sheet of paper to cover the sentences below. It’s all about focus, so do whatever you need to concentrate on each sentence. ✅ COMPARTMENTALIZE DIFFERENT EDITING PHASES You can edit a paper for (a) structure and format; (b) narrative flow; (c) grammar and spelling; and (d) writing style. It’s difficult to edit for each type all at once, so do each one separately. ✅ FIND GOOD READERS TO PROVIDE FEEDBACK It’s difficult to edit your work with complete objectivity. So, find trusted advisors and colleagues who can provide you with critical feedback to improve your manuscript. Don’t be afraid to ask for help, others will need readers too. ✅ REALIZE THAT EDITING IS AN ITERATIVE PROCESS The editing process is not something that is done once. You have to edit your research proposal, outline, and each section of your manuscript multiple times. Every time that you do so, ask yourself, “How can I make this 10% better?” 🔑 KEY TAKEAWAY Editing is a key step in the research process. It helps to make sure that your findings and implications are communicated clearly to your readers. So, take the time to go over your work carefully using the strategies shared above. P.S. Do you like to edit your manuscripts electronically or on paper? I like paper, but maybe I'm just old school. ➖ ➖ ➖ ➖ I'm Joseph Rios, the founder of Grad Student Academy. Follow me if you enjoyed this. I write about graduate school and professional development issues for PhD students. My mission is to unveil the hidden PhD curriculum to all, not just the privileged few. Learn the strategies I used to go from being rejected by nearly every PhD program to: ✅ obtaining a top-notch industry job ✅ landing a tenure-track faculty position ✅ becoming an award-winning researcher

Just wrapped up our inaugural prof-review session in the community - remember, most papers don’t get rejected because of poor results. They get rejected because editors can’t see the value of those results fast enough. I was reminded of this in a live peer review session I ran earlier today. Here’s what kept coming up. 1. Weak abstracts kill good papers Make sure to include: - Big picture problem - Specific gap in the literature - What you did (1–2 lines max) - Key results (only the headline numbers) - Why it matters If an editor can’t answer “so what?” from your abstract alone, you’ve lost them. 2. Literature review ≠ research gap Listing prior work is not enough. You need a bridge: - What has already been done - Where those studies fall short - How your paper removes (part of) that limitation Write the gap as if the editor will only read those 3 sentences. Because often, that’s exactly what happens. 3. Results are described, not discussed Common pattern: “X increased, Y decreased, Z was highest at 30%.” What’s missing: - Is this aligned with previous studies, or not? - By how much do you differ (relative error, percentage points)? - What insight does this unlock for future work or practice? Data without context feels like a lab report, not a journal article. 4. Structure quietly signals quality The small things matter more than most people think: - Avoid one-paragraph subsections – group results by themes - Keep figures and tables consistent (Fig. 4a/4b, not “left/right”) - Use an equation editor and a clear nomenclature table - Always close with limitations and future work This is the difference between “good student work” and “publishable research”. I’ll run weekly or biweekly live peer-review sessions so members can address these issues before submission, not after rejection. Would you like your manuscript to be considered for a future live review? Join my free community! #science #scientist #research #researcher #publishing #peerreview #phd #postgraduate #professor #academic #academia

My supervisor once told me, “Your paper has good ideas, but no backbone.” That line stayed with me. Most drafts don’t fail on ideas—they fail on structure. Over time, I started thinking of a research paper like a spine: if each part is in the right place, the whole thing stands straight. Here’s the structure I now use (and teach): Title – 10–15 words – Include key variables or theme – Avoid vague phrases like “A Study of…” Abstract (150–250 words) – Purpose – Method – Key findings – No references or citations Introduction (~1000 words) 4 paragraphs: – Hook + relevance – Define problem / gap – Past work and context – Aim of the study Tip: keep sentences ≤17 words for clarity. Literature review (1000–1500 words) – Organize thematically or chronologically – Explain models, not just list studies – Synthesize instead of dumping citations – Use subheadings for clarity Methodology – Use past tense – Include participants, tools, procedures, analysis steps – Each subsection <300 words and written in clear, logical steps Results – One main result per paragraph – Use tables/figures where helpful – No interpretation yet, just what the data show – Refer to every table/figure in text Discussion – Interpret key findings – Connect to theory and prior work – Address limitations honestly – 5–6 focused paragraphs Conclusion – No new data – Reaffirm contribution – Suggest practical implications and next steps – Keep it under 250 words Pro tip: When you feel stuck, don’t rewrite everything. Check which “bone” is missing or overloaded, and fix that section first. Save this post 🔖 and keep it next to you while drafting your next paper. ——————————————————————— Follow me 👉 https://lnkd.in/d4b-t6b3 60k+ follow me here—but only a few read The Hybrid Researcher Be one of them 👉 https://lnkd.in/dMB8YJgm Connect on all platforms 👉 https://tr.ee/yEg4hY