> For the complete documentation index, see [llms.txt](https://wang-materials-group.gitbook.io/group-handbook/llms.txt). Markdown versions of documentation pages are available by appending `.md` to page URLs; this page is available as [Markdown](https://wang-materials-group.gitbook.io/group-handbook/research-resources/writing-a-manuscript/as-you-write.md).

# As you write

**Establishing your own process**

Everyone has a different process for editing papers. I believe it is important to have a personal system of revision, especially as you develop as an independent researcher; one strategy is outlined below:

1. Do a first pass read to get the overall flow of the paper. At this stage, mark any egregious grammatical/spelling errors or confusing parts.
   1. Does the paper flow?
   2. Do the section headings make sense?
   3. Are the references thorough, current, and appropriate?
2. Do a closer second pass and scrutinize every sentence for clarity and meaning
   1. Is it scientifically accurate?
   2. Is there enough context that a random person could understand without having to go back to the original paper?
   3. Is it concise (e.g., is there fluff language, could it be split into smaller sentences)?
   4. Is it clear (are there any ambiguous/confusing phrases or places where people can interpret what you are trying to say differently)?
   5. Does it read well (sometimes reading aloud can help find awkward phrasings)
   6. Keep in mind any gaps for citations- e.g., specific group's papers
3. Do a third pass
   1. formatting issues
   2. any missed spelling/grammar issues (for me, I tend to miss having proper verb tense or subject-verb agreement)
   3. anything missing (e.g., captions, citations, a figure to break up the text or that would help to illustrate some part of the paper)
   4. Don’t forget to check figure captions
4. Wait a little bit and revisit with a "fresh" set of eyes and read again
5. Ask another person to help edit.
6. Are there parts missing in the manuscript needed for submission- always double check!

In general, **be quantitative, be specific.**

**Example pitfalls in scientific writing**

* Not having a topic sentence at the beginning of each paragraph.
* Having an over-flowery conclusion sentence.
* The conclusions sentence is not supported by the data presented.
* Comparisons are not specific (e.g., sentence structure is not parallel) or are not quantified (e.g., if something is smaller, how much smaller?)
* The text does not parallel the figures and vice versa.