academiblog

Why do some academics still sniff at the idea of using a professional editor? Some in academia believe that without rigorous standards the integrity of their rarified product is at risk.  I argue that this is not only untrue, but harmful to the productivity of many academic writers. I’m not the first one to raise these questions, but I have a few pretty good arguments that I hope will convince you to use a professional editor if you feel the need.  Let’s look at the myths that keep academics from using an editor The editor might give you an idea, so it’s not original. I’m tackling the big one first.  Try this on for size:  it’s not where an idea comes from that matters. After all, you get ideas from all kinds of places – colleagues at conferences, from your friends, peers, the guy next door, your professors, in classes. People are noting ideas from each other all the time.  No idea belongs entirely to anyone. What matters is the originality of an argument and its precise expre

In "Getting over Procrastination," NY Times writer Maria Konnikova discusses Piers Steel's research The Procrastination Equation , Steel explains that "procrastination leads to lower over-all well-being, worse health, and lower salaries." on procrastination, reporting Steel's finding that procrastination is "a common pulse of humanity," and that it affects 99% of college students in one way or another and translates to significant monetary losses in the work world.  In his book, So if procrastination is so bad for us, why do we do it?  According to Konnikova, Steel's research indicates the answer lies on "the flip side of impulsivity."  Those of us who are not good at self-regulating or delaying rewards until after we have engaged in unpleasant tasks will often be the same people who struggle the most with procrastination. But I wonder -- most academics have been able to delay rewards while they suffered and struggled to achie