On how to shorten a paper (or where do I begin cutting?) - Jason Thatcher

 On how to shorten a paper (or where do I begin cutting?).

A few years ago, my favorite journal unexpectedly imposed page limits on submissions.

Suddenly, authors were expected to tighten their work up & submit more parsimonious work.

The request evoked panic. I wasn't ready to lose any precious words I had written.

So, I submitted an over-the-length paper.

It was promptly returned.

I wanted to publish the paper, so what did I do?

I slashed pages from the manuscript.

First, I eliminated hanging words.

Hanging words refers to the extra word or two in a sentence that extends into the line.

It can be tricky slicing them, esp. if you are already a tight writer.

I have cut as many as two pages from papers by doing so.

Second, I revisited the method.

Authors tend to overexplain their analysis - both how they did it and how to interpret the results.

Usually, I go through and remove extra words. In doing so, I notice where my tone goes from explanatory to didactic.

I delete the didactic.

Third, I shorten the limitations.

I prefer short limitations. Usually, no more than 2 or 3 items.

Every paper has flaws - but no one needs to know that your study has mono-country bias - it's obvious.

I only keep limitations that suggest directions for future research OR that people currently fixate on in the literature (common method bias anyone?)

Fourth, I revisit the literature review.

I always tell my coauthors - do you need a lengthy literature review? When a table of key papers will do?

Seriously, most people go a bit too in-depth in their literature review.

I revisit the narrative to see if I've added too much in some spot or a little unnecessary stuff in another.

Rarely, do I emerge with less than a page snipped.

Finally, I go through the citations.

Academics tend to overcite. I trim citations with two heuristics in mind.

(1) scope - How do I show that I know the classics and recent papers on a topic? I balance what I cut. Then ask the question again.
(2) focus - I go through the motivation, method, and discussion and look for off-focus citations. In those three sections, I invariably find gratuitous or out-of-scope citations.

At this point, having slimmed the paper down, I re-read the paper - and asked have I lost important content?

This is the most critical question; you must remember that you are doomed to rejection if you cut too much of the story.

So really, give the paper a hard look.

If I'm satisfied, I pass it to my coauthors for a second look.

If I'm not, I start over. I'm going to need more space to fix the paper :)

Shortening papers is complicated - I don't envy anyone that has to do it!

Best of luck!