Overall Comments

Great topic and fills a need for new graduate students and faculty. Provides good advice, perspectives and ideas and I think students would really welcome this information. It is also well-researched and the discussion on the three main aspects is thorough and well-supported.

The informality and tone of this article should be revised. There are several big issues related to tone that occur throughout the article. For example, on p.2 “Yes, we said....” This is apparent in the headings as well. Tied to tone, avoid exclamation points throughout. There are first (we, our) and second person (you, your) references throughout this paper that are distracting and should be reworked. Avoid all first and second person references. Throughout the paper (for example: p.2, para 2; bottom of p. 3 through top of 4) there are rhetorical questions to the reader. Revise and make them statements. Also avoid italicizing words for stressed meaning (ex. p.27, para 1 “yes to everything”)

I’m not sure if the case studies work or if they are necessary. You provide the case study on page 4 and then it is discussed on pages 5 and 6. Then it isn’t referenced again until page 12 and it feels out of place. I honestly don’t know that the case studies add value to the paper. If you keep the case studies, I advise weaving them into each discussion section more consistently. Also having additional case studies to show different paths might make the use of case studies more valuable to the paper. My gut is to revise without including them.

I sometimes feel like I am reading two different papers. You focus on two different types of researchers using the same three categories of work in each type and so much of the information is repetitive. Might it be better to write to both groups at the same time in each section with the overlapping info and then maybe doing sub-heads for the two different groups for any info that is distinct at each level? It might even be good to break them into two separate publications. Talking about them each back-to-back makes this paper needlessly long and repetitive. The info is interesting and there is plenty of insightful advice for each group in here but there is a lot to wade through to get to the good stuff.

Page Specific Comments

The intro (p.2) is one paragraph of data setting the context and then two full paragraphs of “in this paper we will” language. I would advise at least two paragraphs that set up and introduce your idea followed by a single paragraph that clearly and concisely sets up the goals of the paper, as right now there are too many things that you set out to do and it is confusing.

Revise sub-headers to be concise.

p.4: Second to last sent- talks about selecting of an advisor. In the CS it says she was assigned an advisor. Which one is the case?

p. 6: Subtitle long and too informal- revise for clarity

p. 6, para 2: “As noted by...” revise sentence for clarity

p. 8, top para: Sentence starting “Some organizations” needs revision with all the “for” clauses. Say “for” one time and just list the possibilities.

p. 8: Revise sub head for this section.

p. 8, para 2 Here you capitalize Masters and Bachelors but in the first line of the next paragraph you have master and doctoral lowercase. Fix and be consistent throughout your paper.

p.8, para 2: Unnecessary italics for the word “all” – please remove

p. 8, para 2: Replace paragraph icon with para. in the in-text at the end of the paragraph.

p. 12, para 2: Paragraph –which indicates new idea—begins “More specifically...” and the reader isn’t clear on what that is referring to. Please revise for clarity.

p. 12, para 2: Mentions “teaching philosophy” which was discussed in earlier sections. Consider moving.

p. 13- the first time you mention service, consider including a clarifying description of what is meant as I am not sure it is clear. Clarify something like “service to profession as demonstrated by...”

p. 13, last para: “Be proactive...” Avoid commanding tone here.

p. 14, para 1: Rhetorical question- remove

p. 15, para 2 (large main para on page): “

Revise sentence “... comprise only half.”- half of what?

p. 17, last para: many words are needlessly italicized in this paragraph. Remove italics.

p. 18, first full para: Remove exclamation point

p. 20, para 2: Incorrect use of semicolon after the word “categories”

p. 21, para 2: Word “jaunting” not correct in context. Daunting? Disorienting?

Also avoid clichés and drop case on “AND” toward end of paragraph.

p. 22, first line: Insert comma after “agenda”

p. 24, large para: List of books- be consistent on whether you list names before titles or use an in-text citation. Choose one way and be consistent.

p. 25, para 1: Typo in “schedule” sentence.

p. 26 Ethical paragraphs- should these get a sub-head?

p. 26, last sentence: “In the end...” doesn’t fit in the paragraph on ethics.

p. 27, last para: Introduce topic of paragraph rather than starting with a source

p. 28:  1979 is a really dated reference. Can you update?

p. 28, para 1, second sent: “Simply stated...” This sentence is wordy and confusing. Please revise.

p. 28, mid para: In-text, multiple citations should be alphabetized

p. 28, bottom para: Topic sent: “...ameliorate these effects.” What effects? Unclear.

p. 30: “black hole”- revise and avoid informal/clichés

p. 30: APA 2015 in-text citation- no match on reference page

p. 31, para 2: Why “(im)perfect”? Just imperfect seems better.

p. 32, para 1: change to “school-wide”