1. Identify the level of review
The University of North Carolina Writing Center distinguishes editing of content, organisation, and clarity from final proofreading of surface errors. This helps establish a sensible sequence: resolve structural decisions before polishing the final details.
| Review level | Question addressed | A possible agreed deliverable |
|---|---|---|
| Structure and argument | Do the sections support the central question? | Organisational feedback on the sequence of ideas |
| Paragraph and sentence editing | Is meaning clear and terminology consistent? | Tracked revisions and explanatory comments |
| Final proofreading | Are spelling, grammar, or punctuation errors left? | Correction of remaining language errors |
| References and formatting | Do citations and references correspond? | Technical review against the specified guidelines |
Further reading: [1]
2. Review the function of each paragraph
Write a short label beside each paragraph: defining a concept, presenting evidence, comparing, interpreting, or transitioning. Read the labels on their own. Abrupt movement between them can reveal a sequencing problem even when the individual sentences are grammatical.
For illustration, a paragraph might move from a definition to study findings and then to an implementation recommendation without explaining the connections. Separating these functions and adding an evidence-to-interpretation link can clarify the argument. More elaborate vocabulary does not resolve the missing relationship.
3. Preserve the strength of the claim in both languages
Check inference-bearing verbs such as “associate,” “contribute,” and “cause,” alongside their Arabic counterparts. Editing or translation should not strengthen a claim beyond what the design and findings support.
Consider the illustrative sentence “The findings prove that training causes better performance.” If justified by the actual study, a revision could be “Training participation was associated with higher performance scores in this sample.” The revision depends on the evidence; it is not a template that replaces scientific judgement.
4. Maintain a terminology and style decision list
Record the Arabic term, English equivalent, adopted definition, and first use. Include decisions about abbreviations, numbers, and variable names. A concise list can help align chapters, tables, and the abstract.
In a bilingual text, compare the questions, objectives, variable labels, and scope of conclusions across versions. Do not change official institutional names or source titles using a guessed translation. Check the original source where the correct wording matters.
5. Agree on a traceable review process
Specify the file, version, and scope, then agree on tracked changes, comments, or another clear review method. Distinguish substantive questions from language corrections so the researcher can identify decisions that remain their responsibility.
Deliverables might include a version with changes, an accepted clean version, and a short list of unresolved questions. Agree how later additions will be handled and whether the tables, abstract, and references are included.
6. Prepare an editing brief
A representative sample and a clear description of your needs support an initial scope discussion. The review depends on the condition, language, length, deadline, and institutional requirements of the text.
- The word count, language, document type, and current stage.
- University guidance or journal instructions, where applicable.
- The required review level and included components.
- A sample that represents the document’s actual difficulty.
- Relevant supervisor or reviewer feedback.
- Your expected deadline and preferred revision format.
Sources & further reading
Would you like to discuss your study?
Explore the support related to this guide, or share a short description of your needs to discuss the next step.