7. Revision, Review, and Submission
7. Revision, Review, and Submission
The decision
Editing improves sentences. Revision tests whether the question, evidence, inference, and structure still fit.
Revise from large decisions to small ones; otherwise you may polish a paragraph that should be removed.
Learning outcomes
You will be able to:
- reverse-outline a draft and diagnose structural drift;
- audit claim strength, evidence placement, and limitations;
- use peer review as an observable revision process;
- assemble a transparent final submission.
1. Use six passes
| Pass | Question | Action |
|---|---|---|
| 1. answer | Does the paper answer the stated question? | write the answer in two sentences; compare with conclusion |
| 2. inference | Does the design support each major verb? | mark causal, comparative, and interpretive claims |
| 3. structure | Does every section move the argument? | reverse-outline; cut or move repeated jobs |
| 4. evidence | Can each claim be inspected? | run citation and source-location audit |
| 5. paragraph | Does each paragraph have C–E–W–L? | repair missing warrants and boundaries |
| 6. sentence | Is the prose precise and readable? | shorten, define, proofread, format |
Do not begin with Pass 6.
2. Reverse-outline the draft
In the margin, record each paragraph's job in no more than eight words.
P1 establishes the practical problem
P2 defines structured feedback
P3 compares review-level evidence
P4 explains variation through feedback uptake
P5 derives the first-year-student boundary
Then diagnose:
| Pattern | Meaning | Revision |
|---|---|---|
| two adjacent paragraphs have the same job | repetition | merge or distinguish |
| a paragraph needs two job labels | mixed focus | split or choose one claim |
| a job never returns to the question | background drift | cut |
| conclusion introduces a new premise | missing development | move evidence earlier |
| section order can be swapped freely | no argument chain | add causal or logical transitions |
3. Audit the claims
Create a table for the five most important claims.
| Claim | Evidence | Design permits? | Rival explanation | Revision |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| structured feedback caused higher scores | non-random seminar groups | no | prior group differences | change to “was associated with greater improvement” |
| comments changed revision | linked comment–edit codes | partly | edits may have another origin | report matched and unmatched revisions |
The purpose is not to weaken every sentence. It is to make confidence proportional to evidence.
4. Test paragraph logic
Use C–E–W–L:
- Claim — one answerable point;
- Evidence — the most relevant observation or comparison;
- Warrant — why that evidence changes belief in the claim;
- Limit — where the reasoning may fail.
Before
Students improved after peer feedback. Peer feedback is therefore effective. It should be used in universities.
After
Mean abstract scores rose after peer feedback, but the one-group design cannot separate feedback from practice or concurrent teaching. The result supports continued evaluation of the activity in this module, not a general causal claim about university writing.
The revised version is shorter and more informative because it identifies the inference boundary.
5. Run structured peer review
The reviewer should not rewrite the paper. They should report their reading evidence.
Reader protocol
Without consulting the author, write:
- the research question in your own words;
- the main answer in one sentence;
- the strongest piece of evidence;
- the point where your confidence fell and why;
- one revision that would most improve the argument.
Author protocol
Classify each comment:
accept → revise and record
adapt → solve the diagnosed problem differently
decline → state an evidence-based reason
Feedback is data about how a reader encountered the draft, not an instruction that must always be obeyed.
A recent example of research infrastructure makes this process visible: Exposía links proposal drafts, peer/instructor feedback, final revisions, and criterion-level ratings, allowing feedback and uptake to be studied together (Zyska et al., 2026).
6. Edit for precision
| Replace | With |
|---|---|
| “a number of studies show” | name the evidence type and pattern |
| “proves” | estimates, supports, is consistent with |
| “significant” | statistically significant, substantial, or important—whichever you mean |
| “this” with no noun | this estimate / mechanism / limitation |
| three abstract nouns | one active verb |
Read once aloud for rhythm, once backward sentence by sentence for errors, and once in the submission format for layout.
7. Submit a research pack
The exact requirement depends on the course, but a strong pack can include:
paper.pdf
search-log.xlsx or .csv
evidence-matrix.xlsx or .csv
data/ and code/ or analysis-notes/
decision-log.md
ai-use-statement.md, if required
readme.md
The README should state what each file is, what is confidential, and how the result was produced. Never submit identifiable participant data unless the approved process explicitly permits it.
8. Make the final defence
Answer these questions in five minutes:
- What is the exact question?
- What is the strongest evidence?
- What can the design not establish?
- Which alternative explanation worries you most?
- What result or evidence would change your conclusion?
If an answer requires searching through the paper, the argument is not yet under control.
Final checklist
- title, question, method, result, and conclusion describe the same project;
- abstract reports the main boundary, not only the preferred result;
- headings form a logical route;
- tables and figures can be understood from captions and notes;
- citations and bibliography match in both directions;
- quotations, page numbers, data, calculations, and links were checked;
- appendices and files are named and referenced correctly;
- required ethics, funding, conflict, data, and AI statements are present;
- the submitted file opens and is the intended version.
Next: use the course workbook to assemble the complete set of research decisions.