Scripto Research Review and Editing

Scripto Research Review and Editing

You do not have to be lonely and wild goose chasing 👐💡🌄

1) Are you finding tax law a bit challenging either grasping tax law concepts, digesting the complex provisions, preparing for your exams and designing research papers? ➡️ You have a dedicated online tutor in me. 👐

2) Do you need to craft a new topic or research proposal for your LLM and PhD dissertation? ➡️ I can accompany you in that journey to be available for brainstorming, advice and pointers.

3) Do you need a dedicated partner to brainstorm your research proposal ideas? ➡️ A dedicated Siri for you.

4) Have you completed your dissertation compilations but need a second eye to w**d out errors and clean it up before submission for examination...? ➡️ Able to clean your text in ways that no software can, like identifying illogical flows of ideas, repetitions, and bumpy expression of ideas.

5) Are you a law/taxation academic or legal/tax professional who is trying to build publications in law and in taxation ➡️ I offer ad hoc research assistance in designing the research projects, information collection, provision of drafts on specific research aspects.

6) Are you a PhD taxation/tax law or LLM/Mcom tax graduate who has graduated and now desire to convert their research into a research paper(s)? - Expose your dissertation work to the wider audience ➡️ Let's brainstorm your ideas on how best to structure the papers + reviewing + editing.

So how can I be of service to you today? 👐👐

Reach out to me on whatsapp at +27 63 140 9437/ +263 776 662 355 or send an email to [email protected] for enquiries.

Kindly share with your networks, appreciated 🙏.

The key to improved writing is writing continously, the better, if you are involved in critiquing endless works of others.

I'm so grateful for the previlege to be an Editor-in-chief for the Young Lawyers Association of Zimbabwe Law Journal (YLAZLJ). We have just published our 2nd Issue with 9 full-length articles making over 70 pages in total. This is a culmination of work of over 5 months involving rounds of reviews and editing of the papers.

The conclusion of this Journal reinforces my reviewing editing experience.

It is relatively easy to just judge papers and provide feedback to authors... I took it a step further by penning two papers that went for review by colleagues, writing skills are getting better each day.

Properly armed to scrutinize your work... 📚📜🖋️. Reach to Scripto for your reviewing and editing needs and you are guaranteed a sharp eye 🔍🔍🔍.

A primer on Reviewing and Editing!

You may at some point have wondered what this research review and editing is and if it is necessary. And yes you are not alone in that wondering.

Many Supervisors recommend submission of drafts for editing before candidates send these drafts to them. This is due to several reasons which include,
1. Supervisors get irritated by dirty work and obvious errors that causes them to delay giving feedback on your drafts or cause them to focus more on cosmetic issues than the real argument/discussion (if this happens you risk repeating stuff and delay your completion).

2. Putting away Supervisors' irritation and it's negative effects, research is such that one gets attached to their argument and accumulate bias such that they cannot pick instances of missing words, hanged sentences or repetitions. An independent mind can easily pick these things immediately when reading the draft. To guard against this bias research candidates seek dedicated second eyes to crosscheck drafts.

I have a developed a standard editing and review protocol which is essentially a checklist of aspects that I tick off before I can send back a draft to a client. And these include:

1. Checking the clarity, focus and grammatical correctness of the topic and giving suggestions or a recommend topic which I wpuld have restructured looking at your themes.

2. Checking grammar correctness from sentence precision, punctuation, spellings. This is do reading the draft word for word.

3. Formatting - I check if the draft is properly structured from how the chapter heading and subheadings are properly aligned with the research theme and if properly worded and numbered reflective of the structure of your argument. I also check the length of sentences and size of paragraphs.

4. Chapter, sections and sentence transitions - it's crucial for the draft to have coherence and flow seamlessly. I check how the writer is connecting chapters, sections and sentences.

5. Soundness of argument - many write but what's written does not at times sound or is self-contradictory... This i check to make sure what's written actually makes sense.

6. References - a good written piece is founded on credible and sufficient research sources. I also check if the writer has used sufficient sources and a safe amount of scholarly sources. Also if the writer breathed some life by using sources such as news paper articles and policy reports that reflect current affairs related to their research theme.

Further, where agreed, I check if thewritter has complied with the prescribed referencing style both in referencing their text and compiling the bibliography.

7. I also check the creativity/artistry of the writer especially in the introductions. Most research candidates tend to go academic dry when writing such that readers are not drawn to their work.

Reach out and let's get editing your drafts.

A research tip to round up the week...!

It is said by many Supervisors and I have personally experienced it, a research proposal is in essence the dissertation.

Absent any proposal, one lacks direction risking shooting in all directions or failing to balance discussion on themes involved.

Even more crucial is a solid research proposal, each chapter becomes easier to write with minimal reliance on the Supervisor for guidance as one would have defined and dissected issues to the point they have attained clarity of thought on the argument they endeavor to put across.

So take proposals very seriously and try to deal with as many aspects towards clarifying your intended research.

I call this research Conceptualisation, a service which I also offer for Law Masters and PhD research candidates. What you get from me is the experience of conceptualizing research and an active creative mind that brings solid suggestions in aiding your ideas.... Mine is to ask crucial questions a supervisor would ask.

Are you conducting research in 2022? And are you wondering where to begin with your LLM or PhD law proposal...? Then I am your person to go to.

Reach to me on whatsapp at +27 63 140 9437 for enquiries.

Here to adopt your research drafts and put in the same measure of dedication as with my personal research whilst editing and reviewing them.

The value you get is undivided attention of a curious, critical and creative mind. 📚📜🖋️⚖️⚖️

Let's go!!

Colleagues!!

Welcome to my page that is dedicated for my research review and editing work.

I will be regularly sharing research tips and engaging with you frequently answering questions you might have regarding research or my services.

Please do feel free to share the page and plug in your network to stay ahead of research with Scripto. Also check on page information the range of services that I offer. Prices are generally tailored to a specific client due to the tailored nature of the service. For a hint on price ranges... Editing and reviewing a 5000 word piece costs R400.

Wishing all research candidates a winning year in research.

Research Coaching 101
I am sharing with my audience some nuggets critical to get one going with their research be it Honours, Masters and PhD. This is to give heads up to the 2022 research candidates who may need to be thinking through intended areas of research.

Disclaimer: All that I share is based on my experience in the law field and general as its meant to apply to researches from a broad field of study areas. Each field, University, faculty and faculty department has aspects that are unique to it that one must pay particular attention to.

a Research Supervisor

Candidates doing partial or full researches get supervisors generally in two ways.

1. Supervisors are either assigned by the faculty/department without the election of a student.
2. Supervisor are assigned per the proposal by a student who indicates to the faculty as to who they have secured as a Supervisor.

The first option requires minimal input from the student. I shall adress the second option.

The most efficient approach to finding a Research Supervisor is to request for Supervisor with a tentative idea of the proposed research. This can be a brief (3 pages) research outline well thought out and written after some good survey of relevant literature.

Reason: As much as Supervisors can assist with conceptualizing your research, they are more forthcoming when it comes to assisting you to refine your own concept. Depending with a Supervisor, there is a degree of independence required of the students and not be spoofed. So being proactive and taking charge of your own research make for a smother relationship with Supervisors plus saving both your precious time.

of the research outline
Since this is your own piece.. You can structure it anyhow although it may not need to be as detailed as an actual proposal in case feedback requires drastic changes.

You may include the following in the outline to give the potential Supervisor a sense of your intended research: Topic, Introduction, Background, brief Problem statement, research question, research objectives, methodology, chapter outline.

So once you have the research outline drafted, proof read it and make sure it's free of errors that may be a turnoff. Reference your work. Once done scout for the most suitable Supervisor keeping in mind their availability and how they do things (you may want to pick a few things from their past or current students of cause with caution and an open mind). Send a brief email requesting for supervision and hinting on why you want to be supervised by that particular supervisor. Mainly it's due to the supervisor's experience and wide publication in your area of intended research therefore you would be confident to learn from their supervision and mentorship.

Research Coaching 101

Nuances - the unwritten and never said rules of conduct

While undertaking research at Honours, Masters and PhD level, one may reasonably expect that certain things are raised either during orientation, by Supervisors, writing center consultants or at least spoken amongst colleagues. Surprisingly, regardless of some of these things being critical to research efficiency they remain unsaid and are a usual cause of frustration amongst research candidates. I think it only fair that one be aware of these nuances that I shall deal with below.



1. Defending your dissertation
In research, "defending" can be understood as justifying a research by convincing the audience, be it a research committee or supervisor or colleagues, on why you took a particular approach on your work.

Defending begins the day you set out to survey for a research topic until when you've submitted the competed final draft of your thesis. This defending can be formal or informal.

Point: avoid being a "yes person" through and through when your Supervisor raises queries and makes recommendations when giving feedback on your drafts.

Where necessary take an opportunity to explain why you did what you did and probably why you think the recommendation made by the Supervisor will not be appropriate under those circumstances. Do so courteously and avoid sounding dismissive of the supervisor's points. At times you must find a middle ground taking parts of the recommendations and indicating why the rest may not be good for the argument.

Remember it's your work and you are the one building a storyline... In most cases Supervisors raises points to alert you to factors or angles you may have missed... It's pointers than commands.

2. Cross references

This is for research candidates whose recommended referencing style uses footnotes and a crossreferencing system i.e SALJ, Speculum Juris style, UNISA Law school reference style.

Point: Avoid immediately jumping into skeletal cross references like using "ibid" "supra note" "infra note.. 1..2..3" "op cit note.. 1..2.. 3" while you are still working your pieces. Rather insert full citations on all your drafts and only do cross-reference when you no longer need to add footnotes. I recommend this so you avoid reworking your references each time you add a footnote that then distorts your footnotes and cross references.

For a proposal complete the draft whilst inserting full citations in footnotes until all is done and only left with aligning footnotes to the recommended style. At this point duplicate this draft by copying the whole thing into a blank page and save that draft (this draft will form part of your actual thesis or use it to reverse crossreferences after assessment of the proposal". Another draft must be cleaned and references aligned before sending for assessment since referencing is a crucial part supervisors look at.

3. TurnitIn
To ensure originality, many if not all Universities require that written submissions be submitted on turnitin.

Point: Avoid unnecessarily uploading research drafts on turnitin if not required to do so before submission.

When you regularly upload your drafts on turnitin over extended periods say you upload your chapters each time you finish them, Turnitin records such as work done and creates a digital footprint such that by the time you want to run the full draft on turnitin it pics the old drafts as other people's work and your full draft may have a similarity scope of 80 or 90 %. This will mean you need to paraphrase the whole thing to bring done the similarity scope to accepted levels. So save yourself frustration and great deal of explanations.




#2022.

Research Coaching 101

the Tone, Pace and Context - Grasping rules for the road before traveling

Through my research review and editing work i have observed that many people embark on writing a research proposal and subsequently, the full dissertation without a good understanding of what they are writing or how the components of the research relate to each other. The result is a disjointed, self-contradicting, half-backed piece of writing.

It's crucial to mention that a dissertation is all about telling a story and communicating a conversation that is in your head by putting it on paper.... The best piece is probably the one written with the reader in mind than one written by a candidate writing for assessment. This takes me to today's research tips that one must consider before undertaking research.



1. Just like driving, know road rules before hitting the research road. Read about the components of the research dissertation especially the components of the proposal. Know what they are, and their purpose.

Many people write a problem statement without knowing what it is, what is its purpose and how is must be structured. That is a recipe for substandard work...not that one is unable to do the right thing but that one does new things from thin smoke without an effort to read and learn first.

The most common of proposal components are Introduction, Background, problem statement, research question, literature review, hypothesis, methodology, significance of research, research limitations, chapter outlines.

A deep knowledge of these components will make life easy when structuring the proposal and connecting ideas which at some point sounds repetitive under different sections and yet it's how it should be. For example, the road map in the introduction usually reflects some research objectives whilst the chapter outline essentially follow the research objectives.

You will also note the close link between the research question, research topic and the core of the problem statement. Further, the problem statement is echoed quiet strongly in the Significance of research section.

2. Before commencing with research work ask your supervisor for atleast three proposals they have supervised which have been accepted or which they consider polished.

Your proposal must be guided by these benchmarks keeping in mind that each proposal varies in structure and tone depending on the topic chosen.

Read those proposals thoroughly paying particular attention to the following:

*tone and depth, style of writing i.e construction of sentences, linking of ideas and paragraphs.
*nature and extent of sources used.
*referencing style.
*framing of introduction and conclusion.
*crafting of the problem statement, research question, limitations and methodology.

Once you are done with all three proposals looking at the aspects indicated above you will get a sense of what the benchmark is and the taste of your supervisor. This is critical since each supervisor has their own areas of emphasis and style. If you follow this you will see that your first draft will not be too far off the mark as much as it won't be perfect.

The bottom line is do not write a dissertation if you have not read one thoroughly worse more not having seen one before. 😅