Michael E. Gorman, 2-2905, Thornton A217, meg3c@virginia.edu

   Revision Rules for All Assignments

When I grade your papers, I will, in somecases, recommend revisions for a higher grade. When I select this option, I will refer you to my comments on the paper and any accompanying check-lists to indicate what revisions are necessary.

Procedure for revisions:

1. Read my comments carefully
2. Make changes where you think appropriate. What I will need to see is

   MY ORIGINAL COMMENTS ON YOUR ORIGINAL TEXT

   AND THE CHANGES YOU MADE--

   I WILL NOT RE-READ THE ENTIRE PAPER!

   Highlight your changes, so I know exactly what to look at. In other words, anything that you have added or changed needs to be highlighted or underlined in such a way that it is obvious to the reader what is new or different.

    

3. Write a memo describing what changes you made and why, and also indicating where you disagreed with my comments and decided not to revise, and why.

This is standard operating procedure for a scientific journal article that is recommended for acceptance, pending revision-- you write a letter with the revisions, describing what you did, what you didn't do, and why.
Part of the author's task is to divine the real problem that motivates the reviewer's comments. Sometimes my suggestions for fixing your paper will be off base, because I don't know the content the way you do, but I have seen a problem, and my suggestions are a way of getting you to look at it, too--and hope you can propose a better solution.

If your revision does not contain all of the above, I will not accept it. I reserve the right to lower a grade for a half-hearted effort.