You’d like me to review your paper? Or your advisor has suggested it? (This is written as though for students, but more experienced researchers get the same treatment.)​
There have sometimes been questions and confusions about what I do. The following is intended to make it clear. This is written assuming that I'm working on paper, leaving the actual changes to you. I can also work directly in the file, in which case it will be up to you to answer my questions as I go along, and to read thoroughly to make sure I've neither left out anything essential nor otherwise distorted your meaning, as can easily happen when (as is usually the case) thorough revisions seem called for.
​

Since 1994 I have edited many thousands of pages of theses, conference presentations, journal articles, book chapters, World Bank and SIDA reports, etc., both within the GU economics department and elsewhere (medical and physiological departments, as well as other economics departments and the African Development Bank). I usually suggest many ways to improve both the language and the writing (including the organization of sentences, paragraphs, sections, chapters, etc.), and I invariably also comment on both the style and the content of the draft as well. Thus it is not primarily a “language-correction” or proofreading service that I offer. If that is what you desire, you should ask someone else!
​

A problem can arise if (as sometimes happens) a professor says (tactfully) “Send your paper to Rick for ‘language correction’,” when what they may really mean is “Your paper needs a major overhaul.” This problem can be compounded if the authors are accustomed to being corrected by teachers and professors, but are not used to either referee reports (which may ask many profound – but not always relevant – questions) or to final copy-editing (which often includes many style changes). Misunderstandings and resentments can then arise which I hope the present discussion will prevent. (In that regard, let me make clear right now that, despite many heavy criticisms which I may make of an author’s work, it’s not my intention to suggest that I could have done it better – or at all: If I could have written the paper, I would have done so.)
​

Detailed writing-feedback is time-consuming and thus costly. However, if one considers how much effort we put into learning mathematics, and how little we put into learning to communicate well in writing – and if we then consider that what economists do most of the time is write (and read) – then some investment in learning good writing skills may be justifiable.
​

This may be true even (or perhaps especially) for those who write well to begin with – for they are the ones who can actually gain the most at least cost. In fact, it may be the extremes who find my service most valuable: those who know that they need considerable help in expressing their ideas clearly in English, and those who write quite well already, but want to write better. (In either case, it may be optimal to get detailed writing-feedback fairly early – say, when the first paper or chapter is ready, rather than the last – so that lessons learned can be better applied to later work.)
​

On the other hand (perhaps surprisingly), there occasionally seem to be those who only want to get their paper finished, and aren’t much interested in learning to write better or in getting it published (and apparently don’t much care about the extent to which it is actually read either). There may also be those who have never gotten over the adolescent conviction that every word they write is golden, and thus aren’t aware of any need for improvement. There are also those who seem to think that, because they know a lot of technical economics (undoubtedly more than me, at least in their particular field), someone (like me) who knows less can’t possibly help them improve their writing. It will spare both me and them considerable frustration if such authors choose not to send their work to me for review.
​

Since editorial assistance can be very valuable to many people, however, I elaborate on some of these points below, with sections on Style, Content, Organization, What Will I Actually Do?, What Should You Do Then?, and finally My Availability and Other Info.
​

Style​
By style I mean everything one sees when one looks at or reads a paper, except for the actual ideas expressed (which are discussed under “Content”, below). Economists generally – and we here in the department – get very little practice in carefully supervised writing (by which I mean writing with very detailed feedback), so it’s no wonder that writing style is rarely considered. But it is important to readers, and therefore should be important to us as authors, if we want our papers to be not only published, but read, and perhaps even cited in turn.
​

Thus, if I work on a draft of yours, I will express my own style preferences. There are differences between commonly accepted American and British styles; my own preferences have of course been shaped by my American experience, though in some respects I prefer British usage.
​

You are free to adopt a different style (of course) – many styles are acceptable. The most important question is whether you have thought about yours, have considered alternatives and have made clear, informed choices, or whether you have merely adopted style-fragments unconsciously. (In the latter case, you probably aren’t very consistent with them, so, upon careful reading, it may be unclear what your style choices actually are.)
​

Adopting styles uncritically from the literature is not sufficient. You may be able to defend something on the grounds that “it is done in the literature”, but that may mean — if you haven’t thought about it more deeply — that you have missed the opportunity to refine your style.  Almost anything can be found “in the literature”, but that doesn’t make it good English, good writing, or even good economics! Our responsibility as doctors of philosophy (or aspiring ones) is to raise the average level of discourse — not to accept the lowest available precedent.
​

Terminology and other style issues are important, and the literature is no simple guide. There are very few universal standards in the literature — there are differing judgments about almost everything — and there can be good reasons for those differing judgments, even on small matters of terminology or notation. For instance, while “the experts” may understand what you mean regardless of which of a number of different terms you use, some terms may have more accurate and precise theoretical implications, or on the other hand may communicate better with non-specialists or even with non-economists (which can also be important). It can even happen that authors attempt to display their erudition by writing as abstractly as possible — with seeming technical precision, but in fact with obfuscating growth of jargon; it is then an editor’s job to cut through the unneeded jargon in the interests of intelligibility for the readers.
​

I take it as an article of faith that economists should be able to communicate in words, simply and clearly. I don’t believe that poor writing, arrogant style, or mathematics for its own sake helps economics. While arrogant style and math for its own sake may impress some other economists, they will not in the long run much improve the profession, nor will they improve the economy itself and the larger society. To be genuinely effective in the world, the economics profession must be believable to the general public, and such writing styles (or the lack of writing style) do not help.
​

A small example of something which economists seem to accept quite naturally, but which any natural scientist would laugh at, I believe, is reporting results (from computer calculations) with many “significant” digits, when in fact only the first two or three places provide any real information. Such practices suggest that many economists are more in love with mathematics, and with method, than with real, meaningful results.  By leaving excessive space around equations (but, for instance, being quite sloppy with tables, not to mention the actual text), many inexperienced authors give the impression that they see equations as trophies: “See, I got another one!” If I work on a draft of yours, I probably won’t get much involved in the mathematical relations in your equations, but I will consider the style in which you present them.
​

Content​
As Alfred North Whitehead said in Science and the Modern World, the business of philosophy is to keep science honest by asking questions. Thus, regarding content, I take a naïve and philosophical approach (as I have also seen many opponents do – at least partly – in thesis defenses). I do not mainly base my comments on any special knowledge, though an exception may be statistics and econometrics, where I frequently find that authors make what seem to be fundamental interpretation errors. If there is something else that I think I know which contradicts something in your draft, I won’t hesitate to ask you about that either.
​

I believe it’s better to receive in-depth questions (regarding consistency of terms and ideas, for example) in the draft stage – rather than, for instance, in the defense. Thus, since it is somewhat unlikely that anyone else (except perhaps the opponent) will ever read your paper as carefully as I will do if I am to offer thorough and comprehensive editing suggestions, I take it as my duty to ask these questions. (Besides, given that I’m reading carefully, questions naturally come up, and writing them down takes very little time; you are of course free to disregard them, but to expect me not to express them would feel actually rather insulting!)
​

An occasional misconception is that the paper requires no further content review because it has been through numerous seminars, and “the experts” have already read and approved it, so it must be okay. But seminars don’t examine every sentence word-by-word, and usually people don’t raise issues there unless they are rather certain of the answers, so a lot of “garbage” can slip through because no one wishes to question it. Small points may, in fact, seem too trivial to demand the attention of the seminar, and yet a persistent pattern of such “trivialities” (including poor organization, redundancies, and sloppy or inconsistent terminology or even formatting) may seriously impair readability. The reader may then lose confidence in the author, and may read carelessly, if at all. It is then the editor’s job to act for the reader, to improve the flow and intelligibility of the paper so that it becomes an actual joy to read. Only in this way will busy people be inspired to read it.
​

Relying on “the experts” to have read and approved your paper can thus be quite hazardous, especially if the paper is not so well written and organized, because in that case they too — being quite busy people — may not really have read every line so carefully either! I can assure you from personal experience that this can be the case, and that it could conceivably have quite serious consequences in a thesis defense, for example.
​

Incidentally, I could provide references for many of the points in this memo (including the one coming up now), but there is something odd about a “science” which pretends to rely so much on reason but which in fact relies as heavily as economics does on authority and precedent! I’ve been told on more than one occasion – in response to an editorial suggestion that a change might make more sense: “No, I’ve got a reference for that, so I can defend that.” But sure enough, on at least some of those occasions the opponent has also asked about the point in the defense, because it didn’t make sense. Having a reference isn’t good enough! (Nevertheless, if you’re interested I can provide some interesting references.)
​

Organization​
The first principle of organization is that one should tell the story clearly and simply and – perhaps unfortunately – linearly. That is, this is not great literature, nor is it oral story-telling (in both of which a great deal of “circularity” may be permissible, even useful). Here we want to state each point once, in a logical order. Having stated a point, all related details, all relevant discussion, should be found just there. (If, on occasion, one makes an exception, it should be clear from the text that one knows one is making an exception, and it should be clear why one is doing so.) Of course at the beginning of sections, chapters, or whatever, one can (and should) introduce the points that will follow; and one should also summarize them at the end. But in summarizing, for example, be careful not to throw in a few more details which you forgot earlier – no, go back and put them where they belong.
​

The second principle of organization relates to consistency and balance. Look at the structure you have developed and see if it is balanced: For example, if when you talk about causes there are three, can the results (of the causes) be organized in the same three-fold way? (If not, why not?) Also look to see if the chapter or section (or table or figure) headings use consistent terminology. Using consistent terminology will help to avoid confusion for the reader, but it may also help you to reorganize your paper in a more intelligible fashion.
​

What Will I Actually Do?​
So, what will I actually do if you give me a draft of yours to work on? First, I will review all the titles, tables, figures, footnotes, equations, references, etc. – all the “little” parts – for several reasons. First, those are the things which give a potential reader their first impression, on which they may decide whether or not to read your work, and how seriously to take it (because they are the first things on which they may judge how seriously you have taken it yourself). Thus, it’s important to present well.

​

Second, it’s helpful to the reader if tables and figures are at least somewhat intelligible in themselves, without requiring much reference to the text; and of course, this also aids the first impression. Finally, careful analysis of the titles, for instance, can often reveal clues about the structure of the paper – including possible oversights, contradictions, and sloppy organization.
​

After that, I will work on the text itself. Unless the draft is extremely well written to begin with, I will probably read every sentence several times, testing alternative vocabulary, alternative sentence construction, alternative paragraph construction, even alternative organization of whole sections. (If you want me to work on your paper, but want to reduce the time I will spend on it, you can obviously do exactly these same things first yourself. Many further suggestions for what you can do first can be found in my Stylebook: Tips on Organization, Writing, and Formatting.

​

Thus your paper will probably come back literally covered with red marks, suggestions on how you might improve your paper in all these ways. But when I have worked on really well-written theses or articles, I have been able to suggest many small improvements without having to essentially rewrite anything – which is more enjoyable for me, and, I believe, more satisfying for the author too.
​

What Should You Do Then?​
If you get back a draft with red marks all over it, you may feel overwhelmed. You may be tempted to start defensively rejecting suggestions, telling yourself that all these changes aren’t necessary, that it was okay as it was. Because you don’t like some of my content questions, or because you disagree with some of my style suggestions, you may be tempted to disregard the rest. Of course, some of my content questions may be wrong, even foolish – I take that risk in order to try to help you – and some of my style suggestions may not suit you. That’s okay.
​

But nevertheless, I strongly suggest that you work carefully through each and every suggestion. (Please keep in mind that I have performed the same service for professors many times, often with results similar to what you have probably received. And know that I am aware how hard it is to edit your own work: My wife does the same thing to my drafts that I have probably done to yours!)
​

In any case, I will probably have spent a great deal of time and effort on your paper (and you or someone may thus have spent a fair amount of money as well). In order to take the most advantage of the opportunity to learn to write better, you’ll then have to buckle down to some possibly difficult – and tedious – work. I’ve seen some of the best economists in the GU department do just that… and I’ve seen some others decline the opportunity (and then face some of the same questions I would have asked, in their thesis defense).
​

My Availability and Other Info​​

My schedule is usually somewhat flexible, so I hope to be able to make some time available to work on your draft if you wish. And if, after you have worked with some of my editorial suggestions, you have suggestions for me about how to improve the process, they would be most welcome.