Exchange of corrections

Always put continuous line numbers and page numbers on your document. This makes communication about the document much easier.

We attempt to do most correcting and commenting in the comment mode of Word.

When sending a document to your supervisor, make sure that if you work on the document while you supervisor is also working on it, you ensure that you will be able to merge both versions later.

Ideally, if you are in a short-time turnaround with your supervisor, work on something else while waiting for the comments. This strategy is not reasonable when on a long-time turnaround.

When a document is send to your supervisor for the second time, please

1. Accept all orthographic or grammatical or semantic corrections made by the supervisor (or don’t if they are wrong).
2. Address all comments made by doing what is asked of you. This means that the document or the data should be adjusted accordingly or calculated anew. DO NOT write answers to comments in the document. If you think communication is needed (instead of ‘just do what is asked of you’) then do so in Emails or personally, not in the document.
3. Major new additions to a document, or major corrections, should either be marked (by grey shading, by bold typing – not in the correction mode), or the accompanying email should give details about the new sections, e.g. by stating “page 3 l. 23-36 is a new addition”.

Please make sure that any document you send for a second time does not contain mistakes that were already corrected, and make sure it does not contain any additions/comments in the ‘comment mode’.

If you disagree with orthographic or grammatical corrections, make sure you are right, and then leave your version (maybe hint at it in the email). If you disagree with major comments, structural changes etc., discuss this with the supervisor. Do not communicate within the document.

Supervision frequency
A supervisor supervises several projects. Whenever confronted with a particular project, the supervisor needs some time to “get into the project” again. This adaptation time can be kept short by the student if the supervisor is contacted on a very frequent basis. If you contact your supervisor after several months, you must expect a long re-adaptation period to your topic.
We try to follow the rule:
- if you deliver text, questions, ideas on a daily basis, you will get feedback within one day
- if you deliver text, questions, ideas on a weekly basis, you will get feedback within one week
- if you deliver text, questions, ideas on a monthly basis, you will get feedback within one month
- if you deliver text, questions, ideas on a yearly basis ...

Commenting on manuscripts
When producing manuscripts in collaboration (with a co-author, or with a supervisor or a mentee), it may often be necessary to make changes to the text. If a passage of text does not please you, or appears wrong, the ideal solution is to make a suggestion for better wording that can be used (in the sense that it replaces the lesser option) within the flow of text. If you feel that not only a few words, but a whole passage or the whole structure of a section of the text need changing, the ideal reaction is to write instructions, as detailed as possible, about what you think would be changed. We all had our share of comments that are like “this does not sound good”, or just a few words underlined, without at least an instruction in what way this should be changed.
In supervising, we strive to make our comments on text as detailed, and as concrete, as possible. This may include instructions on changing a word, a sentence, the direction of a paragraph or the structure of the whole text. Sometimes, if we have a gut feeling that something is not presented in a good way but cannot think immediately of a better approach or better words, we indicate this. In such a case, we usually pursue the issue in direct conversation, trying to seek a solution by common brainstorming.

When adding comments to manuscripts you are involved in as co-author, we encourage you to follow the same approach, to provide concrete text changes, clear descriptions of how you want to change the text, and if you have questions, to make clear what the consequences of the answer might be in your eyes. For example, if your question is “was this done without correcting for multiple testing?” then it is professional to add: “if it was, then it should be re-done with such correction and the results presented accordingly. If multiple testing was done, then this needs to be made clear in the text”, rather than just having the question hovering in there. Rhetorical questions like “do you really believe this?” or “do we have to say this?” are not helpful, and neither are simple factual statements like “I don’t think so”. Please try to explain why you think something is wrong, and think of what consequences that has for the text in preparation – the addition of a sentence, the re-structuring of a whole argument, a fundamental shift in the telling of the story.

When making statements or adding claims, it is most helpful if you back these up by references just as one would in usual text (or indicate that you do not remember the corresponding reference or do not have it at hand).