How to systematically become verified of the "textual quality" of submission on time of submission? How to know when quality is good?
Some older posts:
More particularly, it has seemed to me that 100% error freeness could be technically challenging.
However, is there some general "test of goodness" for "ready for submission"? So given a text, what to do to know it's "good for submission"?
When checking maths, citations, or grammar this is easier. Just see if it matches the rules. But in writing, the particular problem does not seem to be about not knowing rules but knowing where one has broken them by not being systematic enough. I.e. methods for managing error.
Further, the errors usually exist in layers (citations, grammar, parts of grammar rules, cross-references, logical connections, ...). In fact, I think this should specifically ask for a "systematic method" for inferring and/or managing the accuracy. Do such exist?
This could be further confused by a myriad of subjective factors, such as seen in e.g.:
Has some answers like:
However, I'm lost as to how would one do the verification in practice or in a "checkbox" manner and how to actually meet what's sufficient. Given that submissions have errors even with proofreading could suggest that this is not trivial at all.
Definitions such as:
- "they make the paper unreadable"
seem ambiguous if the submitter believed it's readable. So how to decide how readable is it?
- "you learn to make papers "better" by writing papers"
seem unclear for actual verification or measurement of quality for submission.
There's one answer saying:
In summary, my recommendation is to try to point out the key areas in your paper that are likely to be read by Reviewers and focus on having those completely free of mistakes. Perfection is difficult to guarantee, so at least focus on the big picture.
But this is contradictory for the process of writing. If the paper would be read in "glimpses", then shouldn't this suggest that one should aim to make short explanations in the first place? And then checking would be easier since there's less of it? However, is this the only way? OTOH, short texts may fail by being "too dense". And then the question would be "well how'd one know it's too dense?".
Further, this is contradicted by:
More-narrative approaches can be more robust, and less sensitive to typos and other errors.
Confusing the notion on whether the quality can be managed in an independent way. Making writing seem like a matter of taste, but which it cannot be if "quality" must be agreeable. And introducing hard-to-systemize aspects(?)