Blog Post #7 Reflections on Self-Editing~

Blog Post #7  Reflections on Self-editing

• Adherence to the Writing Process for Editing and Redrafting~

          I thought that having more people (4) review my paper would give me wider feedback
          and that somehow that would make it easier to more accurately share the information. I was
          wrong. The information I received was helpful but it has taken some time to organize and
          decide how it could best be utilized without losing my original purpose. This helped me  
          understand that the reader brings his own perspective to the review. I did address the comments
          shared with me but some I felt more strongly about than others.

• Importance or Significance of the Topic~

          The topic was not an issue for anyone. One of the readers thought that it was timely and
          important but that more research should be done to support how to meet the need. This in an
          appropriate topic for my field of study and it is practical. There seems to be a gap in literature
          and research for the specific topic but many different peripheral research articles are available.

• Organization and other Global Considerations~

          The review includes and introduction with a conclusion. I tried to simplify but include the
          outline in both pieces so that the reader could follow the material easily. A reference list is
          included. The length and organization was adequate.

• Effectiveness of the Introduction~

          The introduction outlines the scope of the review and it identifies the argument.

• Currency and Relevance of the Literature Cited~

          While I did review the most current research it was obvious that more is needed. Also, I used
          some bedrock articles from several decades ago because it was appropriate to do so linking the
          foundational work to the more recent research.

• Thoroughness and Accuracy of the Literature Reviewed~

          While the coverage of the review was adequate it became apparent through the research during            rough draft that there are many possible sub-topics that could be included or covered in
          another paper.

• Coherence and Flow of the Path of the Argument~

          The topic outline was instrumental in the organization. I did have to delete one article due to it
          not being appropriate for this type of work (poetry) but now I understand why. I used
          subheadings and they help with the organization and flow.

• Effectiveness of the Conclusion~

          The conclusion provides some closure for the reader but I also hope it provides some
          stimulating thought and possibly a challenge.

• Accuracy of Citations and the Reference List~

          I had to make a few changes here and I confess this area is my least favorite when it comes to
          writing. I learn something new at every attempt. I added one of my references because I used
          it but forgot to add it to the list.

• Mechanics and Overall Accuracy of the Manuscript~

          The editing was better done with days of rest between looking at the review so that I could see
          it objectively. It is double-spaced, spell-checked, margins set appropriately with pages
          numbered.

• Appropriateness of Style and Language Usage~

          I believe that the style and language used is appropriate.

• Grammatical Accuracy~

          I checked the manuscript for correctness. I was consistent with the use of tense. I fixed some
          punctuation errors.

          This was a big step for me that will turn out to be a complete journey. It will be comprised of
           many trips through the hills and mountains of reviewing and writing research. Let the journey
          begin!.....