After an article/book has finally reached the pre-publication stage, the authors have to check the proofs for errors (introduced by themselves or during type-setting). I find this one of the least enjoyable aspects of my work and also think I might not be particularly efficient. It varies with the length of the manuscript. A five-page article in conference proceedings is obviously less of a problem than a monograph.
- When proof-reading my own contributions, it is the umpteenth time that I am reading the same text. I find it exceedingly boring, which might make me ineffective (taking a long time to read the text, and potentially overlooking errors).
- The delay between the actual research and publication of the work can be quite extensive. After such a long time, I am less likely to recall all the details of the analysis, making me more likely to overlook errors in the manuscript.
Asking colleagues to help with this also seems ineffective. They might be less bored while reading the text, but (a) might not be very attentive because they have more pressing issues at hand and (b) can only spot clear inconsistencies, but not other errors you can only notice if you did the research yourself.
How can I make my proof-reading more effective and enjoyable/increase my motivation?