The first three pages decide your paper's fate.
If the first three pages are compelling, a reviewer will continue through the literature review, the method, & the conclusion.
If you are lucky, the reviewer will then deliver an upbeat assessment with three essential elements:
1. The idea is interesting.
2. The paper has great nuance.
3. The contribution is unexpected.
If your first three pages are not compelling, a reviewer will find a reason to set the paper down, find fault in the method, or dismiss the contribution.
If you are unlucky, the reviewer will offer a deadly assessment with three elements:
1. The idea is interesting.
2. The paper lacks nuance.
3. The contribution is obvious.
What is the difference?
The hook.
In the first three pages, good authors quickly weave a narrative that is pregnant with possibilities, intrigues a reviewer to continue & convinces a skeptic that you can complete the story.
Some might argue that writing doesn't matter. An early career scholar recently told me as much. He thought empirics sealed the deal.
I disagree.
9 out of 10 top journal papers set a well-written hook, such that reviewers can quickly see the study's value, help you find answers to problems, & accept its limitations.
Especially when setting the hook, writing matters.
So how do you set a hook? How do you know it is well-written?
First, begin with an intriguing observation.
A strong hook points to the unexpected, such as volatility in cryptocurrency markets adversely impacting the poor.
Why? Because pointing to the unexpected evokes a casual reader's interest.
Second, offer evidence of the phenomenon.
A strong hook will offer unexpected evidence, such as cryptocurrencies' impact on the poor goes beyond financial losses; it also increases their energy costs.
Why? Because pointing to unintended consequences, suggests a gap in understanding without actually having to say a gap exists.
In my experience, overtly stating a gap often fails to convince readers. Implying one exists tends to be more persuasive. It lets the reader use their imagination.
Third, suggest a theoretical or empirical point of curiosity.
A strong hook evokes curiosity, such as government regulation can evoke voluntary actions that mitigate the risks that crypto poses to the poor.
Why? Because counterintuitive explanations or solutions, whether intriguing or outrageous, motivate reviewers to keep reading.
Here is the crucial part.
That hook should be the first thing you write & the last thing you polish. The entire paper should align with that hook, whether written out longhand or sketched out in bullet points.
How to do it? Write it once, polish it, have someone read it, write the paper, then write it again. Keep doing it until you are sick of it. Then do it again until your reader is satisfied.
Then do it to the conclusion, too - but that's a different post!
Best of luck with your writing!
Commentaires