At this point in my learning I volunteer to review for conferences both as community service and to learn more about the process. Here are my take-always from this round of reviewing, which is quite different from doing the full paper reviews I have written previously.

As an abstract writer make sure you:

• Focus on the why, how, and who cares - make sure that those points are clearly and unambiguously stated.
• Assume that your readership knows a touch about the subject but not a significant amount - no one knows as much about the subject as you do when you sit down to write. Respect that and help your reader understand what you have written. (I've been guilty of this in the past, on occasion.)
• Use every word they allow you to submit - maximize the space, never under sell. (I've been guilty of this one too.)
• Use at least a couple of citations - it makes it clear that you know what you are talking about. Also it's simply more professional and positions your work in the flow of previous research. Nothing worse then reading something that says "No one else has thought about this" when the reader knows there are published works - journals and online - that address the same issue.
• Finally if you are submitting in a language which is not your native tongue and in which you are not a near expert writer, have someone else who is an expert read your work and comment. Then take their advise - I've seen works, both full length and abstract, that were scored lower then they likely deserved because the ideas were not communicated clearly and understandably to the English speaking audience. Sadly this is so easy to correct before the work is submitted.

As a reviewer I have learned these things about myself:

• I write long and detailed reviews on full papers but have a tough time getting more then a sentence or two for an abstract. I think this is because basically abstract reviewing is a toggle-switch system with little room for recommendations. I need to work on this writing form so that I am more comfortable that I am giving usable information to the authors. I also want to emulate the reviews I have received that made me feel good about myself and my work, not to become so concise that I sound totally negative.
• I have a clear, and possibly appropriate, bias against work where the authors have not done a good literature review prior to submission. Many of the conferences I attended last year were marred in my memory by presentations where the authors claimed to be the first to look at something when I was aware of a body of work around the subject. I try to give authors space since not all have access to the same level of library resources I have at IU. But if the work is online and is discussed in blogs and webpages, you should know about it before you write.
• Tying into the previous comment I also want to see literature reviewed beyond the author's academic discipline. Sometimes this and the previous comment are closely linked in that if one only searches within ones discipline then one may falsely believe that they are the only person researching a topic.
• Finally I have found that I enjoy reviewing. It gives me a taste of what others are doing and helps me consider new roads for my own research. Also it appeals to my teaching skills, allowing me give a bit of what I know to someone else.

Posted by prolurkr at March 31, 2005 11:35 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.professional-lurker.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/578