It is well known that you can not help yourself by reviewing a manuscript (written by yourself) immediately. There is a need for a distance to promote the quality of reviewing. Please share your experience with me.
I usually give myself 6-8 weeks. For me this gives me long enough to disengage from having gone through the writing process and to come to it afresh with eyes not clouded by familiarity
Thank you Dr Stuart B Jennings. Your comment is rich in English as well.
There's layers of options. It depends on how intellectuallly challenging the topic is for you as the writer, and how much writing experience you have. Some pieces feel new to me after a night's rest, some pieces take a year to gain some perspective on. If you're writing a report on a familiar subject, a few days would be plenty of rest. If it's a subject you're struggling to understand and find a position on, it takes much longer. Ultimately you need a sense of your audience, so passing it to a colleague who is your intended audience is the fastest way to get that perspective. Once you 've done this dozens of times, you'll increasingly know what your colleague would say. If you're writing to challenge your colleagues, you'll need to hear their objections to make the best case for your argument.
Dear Babak Jamshidi, It depends upon certain factors like research topic, methodology and target audience. Usually it took in an average 30-45 days. Thanks
Dear Babak Jamshidi@, the research theme, goals, methodology, techniques, strategy, and target audience all are important in this process. In most cases, it took 4 to 7 weeks. I normally give myself 5 to 6 weeks to complete a task. It is sufficient time for this. I think.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Philology
- Classical Philology
- Manuscripts