Some work is a catastrophic content despite a very good visual impression. Conversely, exaggerated meticulousness can be fatal.
Some works simply show the wrong rhythm: Although there are no factual mistakes, even a superficial view shows that the author is not familiar with the necessary literature, for example when …
- extremely influential and peripheral theories treated equally.
- the bibliography contains numerous ideological or unsearched, popular science books.
- important works were disregarded.
- obvious connections were not recorded.
- no clear content orientation exists.
Use the experience of lecturers
Such problems are hardly known to inexperienced authors, but then come to light when the text is reviewed by an expert. The problems can only be avoided if the author has the necessary tools – above all experience in dealing with thematic texts and stylistic confidence in formulating and arguing.
Before it comes to the actual writing, the topic must actually be penetrated: Here, the perspectives of the important authors – and especially their differences help. These can come, for example, from a different focus or a conflicting interpretation of the research results.
Differences help to separate positions more clearly. Readers can thus test their analytical ability to reflect on the arguments and form a more informed opinion.
Academically careful work, however, goes far beyond that – especially the proof of source, which informs about the origin of the thoughts used, should be taken seriously so as not to expose oneself to plagiarism or the appearance of a defective working method.
In many cases, a work can also be significantly improved by a simple editing by a skilled person.