PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

REVIEWS SHED LIGHT ON TECHNICAL WRITING

TCAFS Newsletter Staff Report

Dick Luebke is the current Research Program Director for the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department's Inland Fisheries Division and the Associate Editor for Fisheries of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Because of his role as a program leader in research and as a technical editor, Dick has reviewed hundreds of fisheries papers. This has given him an in-depth understanding of why some papers shine and others go to "major revision land". In a 1995 presentation to TPWD Inland Fisheries Biologists, Dick laid out some of his suggestions for editing papers, with the suggestion that the material applied equally to writing of technical manuscripts. In a two part series we present a synopsis of Dicks’ presentation that should be helpful to anyone writing technical manuscripts. In part one we focus on some general review techniques and suggestions. In part two each section of a manuscript will be broken down into its components from an editor's point of view. Our thanks to Dick for sharing his insight into the editing and writing of technical manuscripts with our members.

Why do reviews in the first place? It is your responsibility as a fisheries professional and is your chance to improve fisheries science through improved communication of technical information. Fifty years from now we will likely no longer be active in fisheries, but information we publish will last forever. We need to do whatever we can to make sure it is as good as it can be. Editing will make you a better writer because you will learn from what others have written. You will discover good things to use in your writing and see mistakes you’ll want to avoid.

In general there are a few things you can do to make your review worthwhile. First, be quick about it. There seems to be a direct relationship between turnaround time and the quality of reviews. Those received on or after the deadline tend to be of poorer quality. Allow enough time to do a thorough review. Although it varies from paper to paper, a good rule of thumb is to allow one complete day. Stay with the review until you are finished. You will do a much better job if you finish the review in one sitting rather than coming back to it between interruptions.

Do an initial "quick" review first, reading through the entire paper quickly to get a feel for what it is about without worrying about marking on it. Make an extra copy of the paper so you can use it as a "scribble" copy. During the initial quick review make simple margin marks at places with obvious errors or awkward wording, anything causing you to stumble as you read. Come back later to get resolution on these margin marks. Determine what the objective is. Find it and highlight it. The objective should serve as the foundation upon which each individual section of the paper is built. The importance of the reviewer understanding the objective cannot be overemphasized. In general on the initial quick review focus on the big picture, getting a handle on the forest, not the trees. Worry about details later.

During detailed review play devil’s advocate. Challenge everything! If you find yourself thinking "Says who?" it’s a dead giveaway a citation is needed to support a statement. It is not good enough to write so you can be understood; you must write well enough so you cannot be misunderstood. For instance the following sentence is from a manuscript submitted to a fisheries journal: "During winter and spring, 1992 and 1993, 125,000 fish were stocked." To the casual reader this sentence looks fine. However, to the critical reviewer the answer to the question of how many total fish were stocked could range from 125,000 to 500,000. Likewise, the answer to the question of how many stockings took place could range from one to four. Look for statements needing more qualification and those needing less.

Generally papers tend to be what they are throughout. If misspelled words are found, chances are numerous other "sloppy" errors will be present as well. If the authors paid attention to details they will have paid attention to everything else too. However, beware of good writing. Never assume there is nothing wrong with an extremely well written paper. Good writing tends to numb an otherwise critical reader. Don’t allow yourself to be fooled.

Part two of this series will appear in the summer edition of the TCAFS Newsletter.

Back to Newsletter Table of Contents