AcaWiki - User contributions [en]

Technological organization and settlement mobility: An ethnographic examination

2014-12-04T01:18:32Z

Piesquared93:

{{Summary
|title=Technological organization and settlement mobility: An ethnographic examination
|authors=M. J. Shott
|url=http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3630378?uid=3739960&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21104742793821
|summary=
Stone tools are the most common archaeological remains of forager societies. The analysis of these lithics, however, is very broad. Traditional analyses group tools based on functionality and frequency. A large range of tools, however do not commonly fall under one function. As a result, a simple equation of function and gross morphology is not universally valid. An expanded view of tool assemblages within cultural systems is needed in order to get a more accurate representation.

In this study, Shott looks at three major attributes: Technological Organization, Mobility and Technology, and Ethnographic Analysis. The main concern of Technological Organization is that a tool is built in order to perform certain tasks. As a result significant constraints are placed on the tool’s design in order to be functional. Though functionality is the most commonly looked application of the tool, the tool can also be analyzed based on their efficiency of use, minimization of risk, portability, but most importantly mapping relations and discard rates. Forager technologies could also be broken up into three categories: Diversity, Versatility, and Flexibility. Mobility and Technology is important because people need to keep in mind the gross number of artifacts a group of people can carry when taking into consideration how mobile they are. If a group is highly mobile then less specialized and more multifunctional the tool is. Mobility also puts a constraint on the tools when it comes to its design and size. Concerning Ethnographic Analysis, Oswalt points out two major components: the amount of tool types in the inventory and the complexity of the tool.

When looking at the mobility and diversity of the tools, it seems that mobility sets the maximum limit on the tools that can be carried. The diversity of the tools, however, do not necessarily decrease. There would be a decrease in tools but an increase in flexible tool classes that can do a wide range of tasks. As a result, any forager can survive with less than three tool classes. Mobility and Versatility, completely agrees that the fewer the tools, the larger the range of use. However, the complexity of the tool varies with the number of tasks a tool can be used for. Logistic Mobility focuses on residential mobility where the mobility is very specialized and is commonly used in search of a new food resource or when men pursue game or women gather food. Different moves, however, have different purposes. As a result, more specialized tool may be produced.

|relevance=
In this article, though Shott names a variety of different attributes that could allow researchers to better understand the different artifacts and the relationships they have with other part of their life like mobility (but mostly hunting and food processing), I like how in Torrence’s 1989 article entitled "Retooling: Towards a behavioral theory of stone tools" talks about the relationship some artifacts have with others. For example, In Shott’s article it talks about how a more mobile group of people are more likely to carry a smaller tool kit. Something Torrence talks about, however, is how each tool is rather unique and complex because of the tools used to maintain their tools vary which makes them different from other tools.

This article can be broken up into three separate sections. The problem with this is that the first and second "section" seem rather repetitive where the second section seems to deliver a summary of the first. Otherwise, the article was rather well written and brought ups some interesting points and ideas.
|journal=Journal of Anthropological Research
|pub_date=1986
|subject=Anthropology
}}

Technological organization and settlement mobility: An ethnographic examination

2014-12-04T01:17:37Z

Piesquared93: Created page with "{{Summary |title=Technological organization and settlement mobility: An ethnographic examination |authors=M. J. Shott |url=http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3630378?uid=37..."

{{Summary
|title=Technological organization and settlement mobility: An ethnographic examination
|authors=M. J. Shott
|url=http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3630378?uid=3739960&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21104742793821
|summary=Context
Stone tools are the most common archaeological remains of forager societies. The analysis of these lithics, however, is very broad. Traditional analyses group tools based on functionality and frequency. A large range of tools, however do not commonly fall under one function. As a result, a simple equation of function and gross morphology is not universally valid. An expanded view of tool assemblages within cultural systems is needed in order to get a more accurate representation.

Methods and Materials
In this study, Shott looks at three major attributes: Technological Organization, Mobility and Technology, and Ethnographic Analysis. The main concern of Technological Organization is that a tool is built in order to perform certain tasks. As a result significant constraints are placed on the tool’s design in order to be functional. Though functionality is the most commonly looked application of the tool, the tool can also be analyzed based on their efficiency of use, minimization of risk, portability, but most importantly mapping relations and discard rates. Forager technologies could also be broken up into three categories: Diversity, Versatility, and Flexibility. Mobility and Technology is important because people need to keep in mind the gross number of artifacts a group of people can carry when taking into consideration how mobile they are. If a group is highly mobile then less specialized and more multifunctional the tool is. Mobility also puts a constraint on the tools when it comes to its design and size. Concerning Ethnographic Analysis, Oswalt points out two major components: the amount of tool types in the inventory and the complexity of the tool.

Results
When looking at the mobility and diversity of the tools, it seems that mobility sets the maximum limit on the tools that can be carried. The diversity of the tools, however, do not necessarily decrease. There would be a decrease in tools but an increase in flexible tool classes that can do a wide range of tasks. As a result, any forager can survive with less than three tool classes. Mobility and Versatility, completely agrees that the fewer the tools, the larger the range of use. However, the complexity of the tool varies with the number of tasks a tool can be used for. Logistic Mobility focuses on residential mobility where the mobility is very specialized and is commonly used in search of a new food resource or when men pursue game or women gather food. Different moves, however, have different purposes. As a result, more specialized tool may be produced.

|relevance=Connection
In this article, though Shott names a variety of different attributes that could allow researchers to better understand the different artifacts and the relationships they have with other part of their life like mobility (but mostly hunting and food processing), I like how in Torrence’s 1989 article entitled "Retooling: Towards a behavioral theory of stone tools" talks about the relationship some artifacts have with others. For example, In Shott’s article it talks about how a more mobile group of people are more likely to carry a smaller tool kit. Something Torrence talks about, however, is how each tool is rather unique and complex because of the tools used to maintain their tools vary which makes them different from other tools.

Judgement
This article can be broken up into three separate sections. The problem with this is that the first and second "section" seem rather repetitive where the second section seems to deliver a summary of the first. Otherwise, the article was rather well written and brought ups some interesting points and ideas.
|journal=Journal of Anthropological Research
|pub_date=1986
|subject=Anthropology
}}

Stone Tool Production, Distribution and use during the Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic on the Tehran Plain, Iran

2014-11-26T17:54:09Z

Piesquared93:

{{Summary
|title=Stone Tool Production, Distribution and use during the Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic on the Tehran Plain, Iran
|authors=H. Fazeli, R.E. Donahue, and R.A.E Coningham
|url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/4300616
|summary=
Tehran plain is located north of central Iran and is surrounded by mountains, deserts, and small salty lakes that divide the plain into various micro-environments. Tehran Plains was first excavated in 1997 by the Universities of Tehran and Bradford and the Cultural Heritage Organization of Iran. Before the completion of the research about to be discussed in this article, however, little information about stone artifacts were available. The other plains located not too far away, however, located various tools such as flint scrapers, arrowheads and flakes. The Tehran plains, however does not normally contain stone artifacts due to the site’s disturbance, site formation processes, agricultural activities, and possible archaeological studies done in the past.

During this research, six sites were used in order to collect stone artifacts. These sites included the site excavated in 1997, the location excavated in 1998 where they collected 424 stone artifacts that were only visible on the surface, and other locations such as Sadeghabadi, Fakrabad, Mafinabad, and Mehdikani. During this research they looked at the physical characteristics to categorize the artifacts to be tested using Inductively-Coupled Plasma-Atomic Emission Spectrometry for goodness of fit. The Raw material of the artifacts were also closely analyzed in order to better understand the mobility and culture of this group of people.

They found out that some of the sites they were using lasted longer than one phase of the Chalcolithic but more importantly, they found that there is a large variation or raw material in the various sites which resulted in the various organization of lithic technology. The stone tool production, however, was centered around a blade production system. Interesting enough, the study also showed that this group of people started off with good quality material but gradually decreased their quality from the Late Neolithic to the Middle Chalcolithic. This may be due to the collapse of lithic craft specialization that came with the increase in copper technology.

|relevance=
One of the major topics in this article concerns the raw material and how it indicated a network across the region concerning lithic material. The finer or non-locally produced raw material were the most valuable. In an article entitled “Flint Daggers, Copper Daggers, and Technological Innovation in Late Neolithic Scandinavia”, Frieman also argues that the various dagger innovations are a sign of networking but not through their raw material. Rather, Frieman analyzed the daggers in Europe and saw that they all shared a similar idea of what a dagger should look like which makes her believe that daggers were boundary objects.

Overall the article is rather trustworthy, however, the author's lack of description of what an Inductively-Coupled Plasma-Atomic Emission Spectrometry is causes me to question how bias their article is since their focus seems to stray from how theiy reached their results.

|pub_date=2002
|subject=Anthropology
}}

Stone Tool Production, Distribution and use during the Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic on the Tehran Plain, Iran

2014-11-26T17:53:09Z

Piesquared93: Created page with "{{Summary |title=Stone Tool Production, Distribution and use during the Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic on the Tehran Plain, Iran |authors=H. Fazeli, R.E. Donahue, and R.A.E C..."

{{Summary
|title=Stone Tool Production, Distribution and use during the Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic on the Tehran Plain, Iran
|authors=H. Fazeli, R.E. Donahue, and R.A.E Coningham
|url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/4300616
|summary=Context
Tehran plain is located north of central Iran and is surrounded by mountains, deserts, and small salty lakes that divide the plain into various micro-environments. Tehran Plains was first excavated in 1997 by the Universities of Tehran and Bradford and the Cultural Heritage Organization of Iran. Before the completion of the research about to be discussed in this article, however, little information about stone artifacts were available. The other plains located not too far away, however, located various tools such as flint scrapers, arrowheads and flakes. The Tehran plains, however does not normally contain stone artifacts due to the site’s disturbance, site formation processes, agricultural activities, and possible archaeological studies done in the past.

Methods and Materials
During this research, six sites were used in order to collect stone artifacts. These sites included the site excavated in 1997, the location excavated in 1998 where they collected 424 stone artifacts that were only visible on the surface, and other locations such as Sadeghabadi, Fakrabad, Mafinabad, and Mehdikani. During this research they looked at the physical characteristics to categorize the artifacts to be tested using Inductively-Coupled Plasma-Atomic Emission Spectrometry for goodness of fit. The Raw material of the artifacts were also closely analyzed in order to better understand the mobility and culture of this group of people.

Results
They found out that some of the sites they were using lasted longer than one phase of the Chalcolithic but more importantly, they found that there is a large variation or raw material in the various sites which resulted in the various organization of lithic technology. The stone tool production, however, was centered around a blade production system. Interesting enough, the study also showed that this group of people started off with good quality material but gradually decreased their quality from the Late Neolithic to the Middle Chalcolithic. This may be due to the collapse of lithic craft specialization that came with the increase in copper technology.

|relevance=Connection
One of the major topics in this article concerns the raw material and how it indicated a network across the region concerning lithic material. The finer or non-locally produced raw material were the most valuable. In an article entitled “Flint Daggers, Copper Daggers, and Technological Innovation in Late Neolithic Scandinavia”, Frieman also argues that the various dagger innovations are a sign of networking but not through their raw material. Rather, Frieman analyzed the daggers in Europe and saw that they all shared a similar idea of what a dagger should look like which makes her believe that daggers were boundary objects.

Judgement
Overall the article is rather trustworthy, however, the author's lack of description of what an Inductively-Coupled Plasma-Atomic Emission Spectrometry is causes me to question how bias their article is since their focus seems to stray from how theiy reached their results.

|pub_date=2002
|subject=Anthropology
}}

Mobility patterns and core technologies in the Middle Paleolithic of the Levant

2014-10-30T16:09:31Z

Piesquared93:

{{Summary
|title=Mobility patterns and core technologies in the Middle Paleolithic of the Levant
|authors=Wallace IJ and Shea JJ
|url=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440306000185
|summary=During 250kyr - 45kyr, the main form of industry was the Levantine Mousterian. Since the mid-1970, the Levantine Mousterian was culturally divided based off of Garrod’s research in Tabun Cave where the industry was divided into 2 parts: Early Levantine Mousterian (phase 1 of the assemblage) and Late Levantine Mousterian (phase 2 &3 of the assemblages). Recent dates for the Middle Paleolilthics, however, suggest that the Levantine Mousterian should actually be divided in 3 divisions due to climate change. These three different divisions would be divided into the Early Middle Paleolithic (250-128kyr), The Middle Middle Paleolithic (128-71 kyr), and the Later Middle Paleolithic (71 - 45/47Kyr). During the Early Middle Paleolithic, Marine sediment, evidence of pollen, and geochemical analysis of speleothems show a shift towards cold dry conditions while recurrent unidirectional-parallel and bidirectional-opposed core reduction became present.Tools such as endscrapers, burins, and backed knives where also present.The Middle Middle Paleolithic experienced a sudden increase in temperature and humidity while the environment became rather inconsistent. Flakes were the most common tool which included various retouch tools such as sidescrapers. Finally, the Later Middle Paleolithic was when a rapid cool but dry climate took place which resulted in the formation of lakes. There was also a large number of unidirectional-convergent core -reduction and centripetal reduction.

The two major core types in this article that are considered “formal” are Levallois and Prismatic cores. Levallois core are cores that are broken around the surface and then chipped one more time to produce this sharp flake. The form is very predictable though a large amount of skill is need to produce it. Overall, however, the technique allows the person using it to conserve their material. Unfortunately, Levallois cores were overly conservative when they were studied where their differentiation is based on their platform orientation and number. The expedient core are broken down into three different types: discoidal, amorphous, and pebble. These cores are an example of an “instant technology” where there is little need for flint knapping and have very short periods of use.

What they found was that the Later Levantine Middle Paleolithic technology suggested that expedient cores were more prominently made than in the Early Middle Palaeolithic. They also found that in the coastal sample, more expedient core were found than formal cores and very few core on flakes were present than expected. Meanwhile the ecotone sample had fewer formal cores, the expected number of formal cores, and a lot more cores on flakes. The formal vs. expedien cores assemblage show that residential mobility plays a large role in core technology. Meanwhile, Later Middle Paleolithic assemblages with prolonged occupations have low ratios of formal vs. expedient cores and assemblages from the steppic interior Levant has large amounts of formal cores.

|relevance=This article is significant because it shows a different way of mapping the mobility of the people during the Middle Paleolithic. By recording the people’s lithics or more specifically the cores, Wallace and Shea were able to figure out whether or not they were conserving their material or just using it without much thought on the waste. This could also show how much they travelled and give us an idea of how vast their cognitive ability is based on their ability to form Levallois technology, how much preparation they needed to put in to travel large distances, and their ability to adapt.

Though the article does have very in-depth explanations, the explanations of the typologies and environment seem to be longer than the focus of mobility. Wallace also occasionally uses passive vocabulary when making his analysis and connects of how these artifacts support his conclusion which slightly weakens his argument.

|journal=Journal of Archaeological Science
|pub_date=2006
|subject=Anthropology
}}

Mobility patterns and core technologies in the Middle Paleolithic of the Levant

2014-10-30T16:07:38Z

Piesquared93: Created page with "{{Summary |title=Mobility patterns and core technologies in the Middle Paleolithic of the Levant |authors=Wallace IJ and Shea JJ |url=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti..."

{{Summary
|title=Mobility patterns and core technologies in the Middle Paleolithic of the Levant
|authors=Wallace IJ and Shea JJ
|url=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440306000185
|summary=During 250kyr - 45kyr, the main form of industry was the Levantine Mousterian. Since the mid-1970, the Levantine Mousterian was culturally divided based off of Garrod’s research in Tabun Cave where the industry was divided into 2 parts: Early Levantine Mousterian (phase 1 of the assemblage) and Late Levantine Mousterian (phase 2 &3 of the assemblages). Recent dates for the Middle Paleolilthics, however, suggest that the Levantine Mousterian should actually be divided in 3 divisions due to climate change. These three different divisions would be divided into the Early Middle Paleolithic (250-128kyr), The Middle Middle Paleolithic (128-71 kyr), and the Later Middle Paleolithic (71 - 45/47Kyr). During the Early Middle Paleolithic, Marine sediment, evidence of pollen, and geochemical analysis of speleothems show a shift towards cold dry conditions while recurrent unidirectional-parallel and bidirectional-opposed core reduction became present.Tools such as endscrapers, burins, and backed knives where also present.The Middle Middle Paleolithic experienced a sudden increase in temperature and humidity while the environment became rather inconsistent. Flakes were the most common tool which included various retouch tools such as sidescrapers. Finally, the Later Middle Paleolithic was when a rapid cool but dry climate took place which resulted in the formation of lakes. There was also a large number of unidirectional-convergent core -reduction and centripetal reduction.

The two major core types in this article that are considered “formal” are Levallois and Prismatic cores. Levallois core are cores that are broken around the surface and then chipped one more time to produce this sharp flake. The form is very predictable though a large amount of skill is need to produce it. Overall, however, the technique allows the person using it to conserve their material. Unfortunately, Levallois cores were overly conservative when they were studied where their differentiation is based on their platform orientation and number. The expedient core are broken down into three different types: discoidal, amorphous, and pebble. These cores are an example of an “instant technology” where there is little need for flint knapping and have very short periods of use.

What they found was that the Later Levantine Middle Paleolithic technology suggested that expedient cores were more prominently made than in the Early Middle Palaeolithic. They also found that in the coastal sample, more expedient core were found than formal cores and very few core on flakes were present than expected. Meanwhile the ecotone sample had fewer formal cores, the expected number of formal cores, and a lot more cores on flakes. The formal vs. expedien cores assemblage show that residential mobility plays a large role in core technology. Meanwhile, Later Middle Paleolithic assemblages with prolonged occupations have low ratios of formal vs. expedient cores and assemblages from the steppic interior Levant has large amounts of formal cores.

|relevance=This article is significant because it shows a different way of mapping the mobility of the people during the Middle Paleolithic. By recording the people’s lithics or more specifically the cores, Wallace and Shea were able to figure out whether or not they were conserving their material or just using it without much thought on the waste. This could also show how much they travelled and give us an idea of how vast their cognitive ability is based on their ability to form Levallois technology, how much preparation they needed to put in to travel large distances, and their ability to adapt.

|journal=Journal of Archaeological Science
|pub_date=2006
|subject=Anthropology
}}

Continuing Investigations into the Stone Tool-making and Tool-using Capabilities of a Bonobo (Pan paniscus)

2014-10-22T17:14:58Z

Piesquared93: Created page with "{{Summary |title=Continuing Investigations into the Stone Tool-making and Tool-using Capabilities of a Bonobo (Pan paniscus) |authors=Schick, K. D., Toth, N., Garufi, G., Sava..."

{{Summary
|title=Continuing Investigations into the Stone Tool-making and Tool-using Capabilities of a Bonobo (Pan paniscus)
|authors=Schick, K. D., Toth, N., Garufi, G., Savage-Rumbaugh, E. S., Rumbaugh, D., & Sevcik, R.
|url=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440398903508
|summary=In palaeoanthropology, the evolution of early prehistoric hominid cognitive abilities and motor skills is a controversial problem. Though hominids supposedly do not have the intelligence and cognition to produce anything in the prehistoric record, stone artifacts give us a glimpse of part of their life. Many researchers have also used flaked stone tools to compare the abilities in prehistoric hominids, modern humans, and modern non-humans. Various researchers have looked at non-humans such as an orangutan or a bonobo to see if they could create stone tools. If a non-human with the competence of a 1 – 1 ½ year old human could make and use a stone tool, then the possibility that a hominid was able to also reproduce this is very high.

In this study, they continued to use Kanzi (the bonobo) to test his stone-working skills after 3 years. Kanzi was given 11 experiments while each experiment had various trials (5-17). During these experiments, Kanzi was given one unmodified chert for flaking and one spherical quartzite or lava cobble to act as a hammerstone/anvil. The chert were continuously used for the different trials, however, the chert also displayed difficult angles Kanzi would have to deal with in order to produce a functional flake. During the experiment, a tough plastic container was used to seal a box where a food prize could be obtained if a sharp stone tool cut it open.
|relevance=Kanzi was able to produce flakes by using his favorite technique, by throwing a cobble against a hard surface or other cobble to initiate a fracture. By doing this, Kanzi is able to use more force to initiate fractures than when he flakes a hand-held core. He also produces bolder, more invasive flake scars by doing this which results in less step or hinge terminations. Kanzi also did not show any signs of intended modifying or retouching of edges. The flakes, however, did have consistent thick platforms, prominent blubs, and steep exterior platform angles. Kanzi was also able to identify how sharp a tool was by putting it in his mouth and testing the edge with his tongue. Despite this, however, Kanzi still preferred larger, heavier pieces as tools than smaller, sharper flakes.

By studying primates or, more specifically to this study, Kanzi it allows researchers to study more in-depth about the possible relationship past humans could have had with non-humans. Something Kanzi also displayed was a new way of flaking by throwing the cobble onto the anvil/hammerstone and giving a comparison as to how hominids could produce these artifacts as compared with non-humans.

|journal=Journal of Archaeological Science
|pub_date=1999
|subject=Anthropology
}}

Writing Manuscripts for Peer Review: Your guide to Not Annoying Reviewers and Increasing Your Chances of Success

2014-09-28T10:11:08Z

Piesquared93:

{{Summary
|title=Writing Manuscripts for Peer Review: Your guide to Not Annoying Reviewers and Increasing Your Chances of Success
|authors=Claire Z. Kalpakjian, Michelle Meade
|url=http://faculty.tru.ca/mreudink/3300_Lectures_files/Kalpakjian%20%26%20Meade%202008.pdf
|summary=in Kalpakjian's article, "Writing Manuscripts for Peer Review", Kalpakjian starts the article in an interesting route. Unlike most writers who either ease into the topic or who start explaining what's wrong with most writings, Kalpakjian starts her article by stating ways writers wastes time. She then starts to number the ten steps such as not spell-checking or being inconsistent throughout one's Manuscript and explains after each numbering why that step would be unprofessional. Kalpakijan, however, explains it in a way that makes it sound like she it's ok to do these steps which bring up a sarcastic tone and really pulls the point across to the readers.

1) Don't spell check

2) Do Not Follow Instructions

3) Conduct a Poor Review of the Literature

4) Pay Little Attention to Statistics

5) Be Inconsistent Throughout Your Manuscript

6) Provide a Confused and Disorganized Results Section

7) Misinterpret Results

8) A Picture is Worth a Thousand words

9) Have the Reviewer ask..."Haven't I Seen This Before?"

10) Argue with Reviewers

Afterwards, Kalpakjian's tone becomes more serious as she then begins to explain the important elements of a paper. This can be seen most obviously in the amount of detail and care she uses when explaining how to improve one's writing. Kalpakjian does this by bringing in outside sources, different authors and sites that support her reasoning but by also making clear and concise subheadings thus making it easier for the readers to follow the main idea. The ten key points that she hits concerning a well written paper is organization, focus, the right amount of detail, the paper's structure and style, a concise framework, a paper with an accurate statistical analysis and results section, reporting standards, special consideration for rehabilitation research, by having a co-authorship (for reasons of having another writer checking off that they agree with you), by learning from your reviews, and finally to not be too hard on oneself and just enjoy the little victories.
|relevance=The importance of the article is that writing is an important skill set that is widely used in various occupations. As a result, writing can be a skill that can benefit almost everyone but is also a skill that can almost always be improved. Kalpakjian's article is one of many articles that tries to explain to readers how to improve their writing and what they could possibly be doing wrong but she does so in a rather uncommonly fashion.
|journal=Sex Disabil
|pub_date=2008/07/25
|doi=10.1007/s11195-008-9090-z
|subject=Education
}}

Writing Manuscripts for Peer Review: Your guide to Not Annoying Reviewers and Increasing Your Chances of Success

2014-09-28T10:10:17Z

Piesquared93: Created page with "{{Summary |title=Writing Manuscripts for Peer Review: Your guide to Not Annoying Reviewers and Increasing Your Chances of Success |authors=Claire Z. Kalpakjian, Michelle Meade..."

{{Summary
|title=Writing Manuscripts for Peer Review: Your guide to Not Annoying Reviewers and Increasing Your Chances of Success
|authors=Claire Z. Kalpakjian, Michelle Meade
|url=http://faculty.tru.ca/mreudink/3300_Lectures_files/Kalpakjian%20%26%20Meade%202008.pdf
|summary=in Kalpakjian's article, "Writing Manuscripts for Peer Review", Kalpakjian starts the article in an interesting route. Unlike most writers who either ease into the topic or who start explaining what's wrong with most writings, Kalpakjian starts her article by stating ways writers wastes time. She then starts to number the ten steps such as not spell-checking or being inconsistent throughout one's Manuscript and explains after each numbering why that step would be unprofessional. Kalpakijan, however, explains it in a way that makes it sound like she it's ok to do these steps which bring up a sarcastic tone and really pulls the point across to the readers.

1) Don't spell check
2) Do Not Follow Instructions
3) Conduct a Poor Review of the Literature
4) Pay Little Attention to Statistics
5) Be Inconsistent Throughout Your Manuscript
6) Provide a Confused and Disorganized Results Section
7) Misinterpret Results
8) A Picture is Worth a Thousand words
9) Have the Reviewer ask..."Haven't I Seen This Before?"
10) Argue with Reviewers

Afterwards, Kalpakjian's tone becomes more serious as she then begins to explain the important elements of a paper. This can be seen most obviously in the amount of detail and care she uses when explaining how to improve one's writing. Kalpakjian does this by bringing in outside sources, different authors and sites that support her reasoning but by also making clear and concise subheadings thus making it easier for the readers to follow the main idea. The ten key points that she hits concerning a well written paper is organization, focus, the right amount of detail, the paper's structure and style, a concise framework, a paper with an accurate statistical analysis and results section, reporting standards, special consideration for rehabilitation research, by having a co-authorship (for reasons of having another writer checking off that they agree with you), by learning from your reviews, and finally to not be too hard on oneself and just enjoy the little victories.
|relevance=The importance of the article is that writing is an important skill set that is widely used in various occupations. As a result, writing can be a skill that can benefit almost everyone but is also a skill that can almost always be improved. Kalpakjian's article is one of many articles that tries to explain to readers how to improve their writing and what they could possibly be doing wrong but she does so in a rather uncommonly fashion.
|journal=Sex Disabil
|pub_date=2008/07/25
|doi=10.1007/s11195-008-9090-z
|subject=Education
}}