PROPOSAL AND JOURNAL WRITING EXPERIENCES FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF A GRADUATE STUDENT Outline for Today  Walk through a 3 year proposal example  Received funding  Share experiences in writing journal articles  Discuss how to properly review journal articles from my perspective Proposal Writing – its tedious!  Process will be long, but worth it  Typically takes on the order of weeks to a few months  Dependent upon the duration of the proposal call you are after  Will take several iterations to get things as perfectly written as possible.  Know your audience and your limitations  i.e., balance showing what you know and what would be common sense to the review board  Do not try to propose more work than you can handle Outlining the Proposal  Dependent upon page limitations  Should have the following           Abstract Introduction to the problem Related Work Proposed Work and Technical Approach Milestones, Deliverables, Responsibilities Relation to organization proposing toward Current and Pending References Budget Explanation Letters of support from partners – when necessary Proposal sent in, what’s next  Waiting is the hardest part…  This can take several months to up to a year in some cases  Need to be proactive if you have not heard from the funding organization to touch base and see how far along your proposal is in the system  The review  Constructive criticism will be provided when your proposal returns  Be prepared to trim your budget Experiences Writing Journal Articles  Key points when writing a journal article are:  Targeting the correct journal  Audience, budget, turn around period  Is this research new and contributive to the science?  How much content should we provide?  1 article vs 2?  What are the authors we should include? What order?  What format will you write your article in? Is there a template?  e.g., Word, LaTeX, etc. AMS: http://www.ametsoc.org/pubs/journals/submi tmanuscript.html AGU: http://www.agu.org/pubs/authors/manuscript_to ols/journals/manuscript_prep.shtml NWA: http://www.nwas.org/digest/instructions.php Handling Reviews  Reviewers will be critical of you work, so what is the best way to handle critical reviews?  How do I go about responding to reviews?  What time frame can I expect the re-reviews to come back? Review Examples I have received/seen…  This is a great paper, but here are several things that are still missing.  After careful consideration I regret to inform you that your topic does not present a significant enough advance in geophysics for this journal.  Did not even get to reviewers in this case  Two of the reviewers accept work with minor revisions, but the editor and the third reviewer give you a major revisions notice  Editor then sends you a journal article on how to write good journal articles Review Examples I have seen…  Reviewer A and C like your work, Reviewer B rejects your work, the editor brings in two more reviewers and Reviewer D accepts as is and reviewer E rejects it.  What do you do here? Reviewing Articles  Typically start to receive reviews once you’ve published one journal article  Multi layered system  Chief Editor  Editors  Associate editors  Reviewers  Any type of editor position is either appointed or invited Reviewing Articles  Read through them at least twice, with some time period between your reviews. This allows you to:  Think about their approach  Consider suggestions for improving the research  Consider professional and constructive responses to the points you might have issues with in their manuscript  If you are young in your career you probably want to remain an anonymous reviewer.