thisisloha.blogg.se

• #BOOK MANUSCRIPT PROFESSIONAL#

Near the end of a thoughtful set of comments on an essay to one author, Peggy noted, “Can I be really honest and say I think this essay just doesn’t jell in this form.” 3.

Indeed, her support made her candor a gift that could be heard. In Peggy’s reviews encouragement never took the place of candor or sharing her expert judgment. As another author noted in evaluating the impact of Peggy’s comments, “Her insights gave me a desperately needed inspiration to tackle the manuscript one more time.” And, finally, support can let an author know that it’s time for work to be launched into the broader world. “Throughout the process of editing the book and responding to external reviews,” one author noted, “I had much more confidence in the work as a whole, not because Peggy told me it was good, but because she told me what was good about it.” Moreover, by naming what is original and important and why and to whom and to what scholarly debates, a reviewer not only validates an author’s work, but also, often helps authors see things in an entirely new light. But more than this, retaining any sense of what is original, important, and worth sharing in a project that we have lived with for a very long time is one of the highest challenges of scholarly work.

It is important to acknowledge that labor. Why is it important to focus first on what the author has done well? We all know that even an article, and most certainly every book manuscript, reflects years of work. Peggy reminded us how important it is to tell an author where she/he has succeeded in matters large and small: acknowledging a compelling bit of prose complimenting the organization of the argument highlighting the author’s success in addressing a particularly thorny research question or, finally, noting the historiographic contributions of the piece as a whole. It’s all too easy to immediately dig into what’s “wrong” with a manuscript. Begin by recognizing what the author has accomplished (See also the In Memoriam essay about Peggy Pascoe in the November 2010 issue of Perspectives on History.) 1. This essay is a tribute to this aspect of her contribution to the historical profession, We can do her memory no greater honor than to let her be our model on the art of manuscript reviewing and carry on her legacy. Peggy Pascoe died on July 23, 2010, after a four-year battle against cancer. The explanatory comments include reflections from the authors on what Peggy's comments meant to a particular work and to their careers. The 10 guidelines below are culled from reading and reflecting on Peggy's comments on manuscripts by a broad range of authors (myself included), both junior and senior. Peggy Pascoe did not write down a set of guidelines for manuscript reviewing she modeled the art in the hundreds of manuscripts she read for others. To be a good reviewer of manuscripts takes more than just a willingness to read someone else's work: it is an art.

#BOOK MANUSCRIPT PROFESSIONAL#

Beyond acknowledgments in books and articles, we have few professional outlets to recognize the largely invisible work of manuscript reviewing that is the lifeblood of our profession and even less training or attention directed toward developing this essential skill. Author's Note: Our profession is at once deeply solitary and yet fundamentally collective.