Talking Reading Listening Essay Research Paper Writing — страница 2

  • Просмотров 119
  • Скачиваний 5
  • Размер файла 16

It is okay, and even desirable, however, to separate the model and the analysis of the equilibrium. 9. Do not introduce new facts in your concluding section. Instead, (a) summarize your findings, or (b) suggest future research. 1 Eric Rasmusen, Indiana University School of Business, Rm. 456, 1309 E 10th Street, Bloomington, Indiana, 47405-1701. Office: (812) 855-9219. Fax: 812-855-3354. Email: Web: Revised July 2, 1996. Writing 3 10. Even a working paper should have a list of references, and these should be at the very end, after the appendices and diagrams, so the reader can flip to them easily. Law reviews do not publish lists of references, but you should have one anyway for the working paper version, including

separately a list of cases and statutes cited, with, if you want to be especially helpful, a phrase of explanation. Example: United States v. O?Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968) (upholding the conviction of a draft card burner). 11. Be content if your paper has one contribution to make. That is one more than most published articles. If you include too many points, the reader may not be able to locate the best one. Beware of listing too many results as propositions. Three propo-sitions to an article is plenty; a paper with ten propositions clearly has nothing to say. But don?t follow the example of the author who had eight propositions and eight theorems so he could avoid double-digit numbering! 12. Please don?t shoot the reader; he?s doing his best. The reader, like the customer, is

always right. That is not to be taken literally, but it is true in the sense that if the reader has trouble, the writer should pay attention to why, and not immediately blame the reader. Copyeditors are a different matter. Especially at law reviews and scholarly journals, they are often pedantic young college grads who rely on rules and ignore clarity. (In my experience, book copyeditors are much better.) 13. In dealing with journals, remember that the editor, and even the referee, is usually much smarter than you are. They often get things wrong, but that is because they are in a hurry or feel obligated to give objective reasons for rejecting a paper when the real reason is that it is trivial or boring. If a referee has given some thought to the paper, he is probably correct

when he suggests changes. Suggesting changes is a sign that he has indeed given some thought to it; referees who have just skimmed the paper usually do not suggest any changes. 14. Reading your paper out loud is the best way to catch awkward phrasing and typos. Have someone else proofread the final version for you. 15. It is very useful to set aside a paper for a week or a month before going back to revise it. 16. Serious papers require many drafts (five to twenty-five). Coursework does not, but you should be aware of the difference from professional academic standards. 17. Look at published papers to get a guide for the accepted formats for academic papers. 18. Scholarly references to ideas can be in parenthetic form, like (Rasmusen [1988]), instead of in footnotes. 2 Footnotes

are suitable for tangential comments, citation of specific facts (e.g., the ratio of inventories to final sales is 2.6), or explanations 2 Like this: Rasmusen, Eric (1988) ?Stock Banks and Mutual Banks.? Journal of Law and Economics. October 1988, 31: 395-422.