Aaargh! I hate being “Reviewer 2” but once, just once would I like to peer review a well-written, well-structured article that isn’t clearly just a chapter of someone’s PhD with no further consideration given to how to turn it into its own, fully-fledged and coherent narrative.
Even if I agree with all your good intentions and nearly all of your arguments, if you don’t spend some time kicking this thing into shape before submission, there is very little a reviewer can do to get you published. Here’s a few tips:
1. Start by challenging yourself to cut the thing down by a third. Yes, always. You may not manage all of it, but it will force you to sharpen your argument and eliminate a lot of extraneous detail.
2. Speaking of argument, ask yourself, “What is your research question?” What is it that your are trying to prove? Not through your PhD thesis, not through your life’s work, but through THIS article. State that question clearly at the beginning and answer it at the end.
3. Use the middle bit solely - and I mean SOLELY - to talk about things that get you from your question to your answer. This is different from your PhD thesis, where you are supposed to show that you are aware of adjacent discourses.
This article should only be about the thing it is about. I know this is hard after all the time you spend crafting that elegant turn of phrase, but KILL YOUR EFFING BABIES!
4. We all know not to call something “new” just because it is “new to us”. Equally, something is not new, just because it has not been written about in the English language. This applies in particular wrt to data protection, where a lot of fundamental scholarship is in German.
5. Connected to that, please don’t rely on other people’s interpretation of primary sources published in a language that you (or indeed they, it seems) don’t speak. Go back to the original source, translate, make up your own mind.
6. Comparative study is not just about legal language but about legal culture. Translation apps are your friend, but when in doubt, find a native speaker to help translate not just the letter but the spirit of the law and its context.
7. Spend some time on readability. If you use abstract terms, define what they mean to you in the context of this article. If you make abstract arguments, illustrate them with examples and use cases. Reading academic work should not be the equivalent of a Tough Mudder Challenge.
8. Structure. It’s about the order of things. Literally, what you talk about first, second and third. If your article is littered with “see belows”, you have a problem.
Structure dictates narrative, which dictates understanding, which dictates how many people you will eventually convince of your view. It’s important.
9. Resist the temptation of boosting your own (self-)image by using a lot of big words. Law is all about translating complex abstract concepts into a language that non-lawyers can understand.
Yes, some discourse needs to happen at a more expert level and requires the use of specific terminology. But when in doubt, be inclusive rather than exclusive in the language you use. That doesn’t mean you have to dumb it down. But it means having your audience’s needs in mind.
Let me finish by saying that I have made all of these mistakes myself. We all have. I still frequently make many of them. Particularly the overwriting and lack of focus. It’s easy to get lost in and be in love with your own argument. Because it’s all so interesting.
But ultimately the goal is to get the thing published. And the chances of that will increase dramatically, the more you write for others rather than yourself. /fin
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
