PhD candidate at University of Alberta

Two weeks is a razor‑thin window, but it isn’t impossible if you treat the rewrite as a series of bounded tasks rather than a single monolithic project. Realistically you’ll need somewhere between 30 and 40 hours of focused work to trim a 45‑page discussion to about 20 pages, re‑write it in the journal’s interdisciplinary voice, and convert every citation to APA 7. If you can dedicate 3–4 hours each weekday and a longer block on the weekend, you’ll stay within the deadline; any less and the quality will suffer.

The biggest risk is assuming the bulk of the effort is just “cutting text.” In practice the time sinks are locating the most persuasive arguments, rewriting them to match the target audience, and wrestling with the minutiae of APA formatting. Expect to spend roughly a day on planning, two days on content reduction, another day on stylistic rewrites, a full day on reference overhaul, and the final day polishing language and checking compliance. That adds up to the 30‑40 hour range mentioned above.

Most students underestimate how long it takes to locate the “core narrative” that will survive the cut. The thesis discussion often contains multiple sub‑threads that feel essential because they were written over several years. Pinpointing the one or two threads that directly answer the journal’s research question can take a full day of reading and note‑taking.

Rewriting from scratch is another hidden drain. You can’t simply delete paragraphs and hope the remaining text still reads smoothly; you’ll need to craft new transition sentences, re‑order arguments, and sometimes re‑run statistical descriptions to match the journal’s brevity expectations. That rewriting phase usually doubles the time you originally allocated for cutting.

Formatting to APA 7 is notoriously detail‑heavy. Reference managers will mis‑export DOIs, page ranges, and author lists, forcing you to correct dozens of entries manually. Tables and figures often need new captions, placement notes, and permission statements, which can eat several hours if you’re not already familiar with the journal’s template.

“I thought I could shave the discussion down in a weekend, but every time I cut a paragraph I lost a link to the next point. It took me three days just to rebuild the logical flow.” – a PhD candidate who finished the rewrite in 33 hours.

The workload is genuinely heavy. Even with a disciplined schedule, you’ll be juggling deep‑thinking writing with tedious formatting. It’s normal to feel the pressure, and there’s no shortcut that replaces the need for multiple read‑throughs and careful editing.

What terminology does the journal expect in the discussion?

The interdisciplinary journal you’re targeting usually asks for a concise “Discussion” that is split into three labeled subsections: Interpretation of Findings, Implications for Theory and Practice, and Limitations & Future Directions. The rubric circles the words “interpretation,” “implications,” and “limitations” because they signal that you’ve moved beyond description to synthesis. Your thesis likely has a sprawling “Conclusion” that repeats the literature review; the journal wants you to replace that with a focused paragraph that directly ties your results to the broader field.

Another term that often trips students is “conceptual integration.” The editors look for a sentence that explicitly states how your work bridges at least two disciplines, using language like “by integrating X‑theory from discipline A with Y‑methodology from discipline B.” If you can drop a sentence that merely restates known theory and replace it with this integration claim, you’ll satisfy the rubric’s demand for interdisciplinary relevance.

Finally, the journal’s style guide requires a “Key Contributions” bullet list right after the discussion heading. Each bullet must be no longer than 15 words and start with a strong verb (e.g., “Demonstrates,” “Reveals,” “Challenges”). Including this list not only checks a box but also forces you to distill the 45‑page argument into its essence, which naturally helps you meet the page limit.

Focus on inserting these exact headings and bullet list; the rest of the manuscript can be trimmed around them. By aligning your terminology with the journal’s rubric, you eliminate one major source of revision time.

What technical pitfalls will slow me down when reformatting to APA 7?

The most common failure mode is inconsistent reference formatting. Even if you use a reference manager, the exported .bib file often produces “doi:10.xxxx” without the required “https://doi.org/” prefix, or it leaves out the retrieval date for online sources. Manually correcting each entry is tedious, so allocate a dedicated block of time to run a find‑replace script or use the APA 7 style template in your word processor.

In‑text citations are another minefield. The journal expects the author‑date format with a comma after the year (e.g., Smith, 2022, p. 15) and requires “et al.” after the first citation of works with three or more authors. Many students forget to update the citation after they delete a paragraph, leaving “(Smith, 2022)” dangling without a page reference. A quick scan with the “Find” function for “(,” can reveal orphaned citations.

Tables and figures must be placed after the first mention in the text, labeled “Table 1” or “Figure 1,” and include a concise note below. The journal disallows vertical lines and prefers a single‑spacing format. If you copy tables directly from your thesis, they often retain extra gridlines and a “Table 1.1” style that the journal will reject. Re‑create each table using the journal’s Word template to avoid re‑formatting headaches later.

Finally, watch the manuscript’s line spacing and margin settings. The journal requires double‑spacing throughout, except for block quotes, footnotes, and reference entries, which are single‑spaced with a hanging indent. A single missed setting can cause the entire document to be returned for “formatting non‑compliance,” adding days to your schedule.

How can I avoid similarity‑detector flags while cutting down my thesis?

Self‑plagiarism is a real concern when you recycle large blocks of text from your dissertation. The journal’s similarity check will flag any paragraph that matches more than 30 % of your thesis without proper citation. To stay safe, treat every retained sentence as if it were a new publication: re‑phrase, add a fresh citation to the original dissertation (e.g., “(Author, 2024, unpublished dissertation)”), and, where possible, integrate a new sentence that reflects the journal’s audience.

Paraphrasing isn’t just swapping synonyms; you need to restructure the argument. Start by writing a one‑sentence summary of the original paragraph, then expand it with the journal’s terminology and a tighter focus on the research question. This process naturally reduces overlap while sharpening the narrative.

If you must quote a passage verbatim—perhaps a definition that is standard in your field—enclose it in quotation marks and provide a precise page number. The journal’s policy typically allows up to 10 % quoted material, so keep direct quotes to a minimum.

Run a plagiarism scan on your own draft before submission. Most university libraries provide a free tool; the report will highlight any sections that exceed the similarity threshold. Address each flagged segment immediately, either by re‑writing or by adding the appropriate citation. This extra check can save you a last‑minute rejection.

What step‑by‑step time plan lets me finish in two weeks?

Begin tonight with a rapid “big‑picture” map: open your thesis discussion, copy the entire text into a new document, and insert three placeholder headings—Interpretation, Implications, Limitations. Highlight every sentence that directly references your primary results; these are the non‑negotiable core. Anything else is a candidate for removal or condensation.

1. Day 1–2 (6 hours): Refine the outline, decide which arguments survive, and write a one‑paragraph “Key Contributions” list.
2. Day 3–4 (12 hours): Cut down to ~20 pages. Delete entire subsections that repeat literature review, then tighten remaining paragraphs to 150–180 words each.
3. Day 5 (8 hours): Rewrite transitions, embed the interdisciplinary integration sentence, and ensure each core argument follows the journal’s three‑subsection structure.
4. Day 6 (8 hours): Convert every citation to APA 7, rebuild the reference list, and reformat tables/figures using the journal’s template.
5. Day 7 (4 hours): Proofread, run the plagiarism checker, verify word count, and complete the journal’s submission checklist.

What you cannot cut: the logical flow between results and interpretation, the explicit statement of your contribution, and the compliance with APA 7 reference style. What you can trim: extensive background paragraphs, redundant methodological details that belong in the methods section, and any speculative future‑work sentences that do not directly support the journal’s scope.

If you find yourself short on time, collapse the “Limitations & Future Directions” into a single paragraph and drop any optional sub‑headings. The core narrative and proper citation format are the only non‑negotiables for acceptance.

Which hidden tasks usually steal hours from your two‑week plan?

When you sit down on day 1, the outline looks tidy and the word count feels manageable. By mid‑week, a spreadsheet of references, a dozen figure revisions, and a handful of style‑check warnings start to surface. Those “small” items are the real time‑eaters for most PhD candidates.

First, the journal’s template often forces every figure into a specific width, font, and caption format. If you have ten figures, each conversion can take 15–20 minutes, especially when you need to export high‑resolution PNGs from your analysis software. Second, the reference manager may not map every entry cleanly to APA 7; manual edits creep in, and a single malformed DOI can trigger a citation‑style error that the submission system refuses to accept. Third, the interdisciplinary journal expects a concise “Significance” paragraph that explicitly links your findings to at least two other disciplines. Drafting that sentence usually requires a quick literature scan, which adds another 30–45 minutes per draft.

For example, a chemistry‑focused PhD student discovered that re‑writing the “Significance” paragraph to satisfy a sociology‑oriented audience required pulling three extra citations from a sociology database, re‑reading those abstracts, and then weaving a sentence that satisfied both reviewers. That extra step added roughly 3 hours to the schedule, pushing the original 20‑hour estimate to 23 hours.

To keep those hidden tasks from derailing you, run a “pre‑submission sanity check” before you start polishing:

• Open the journal’s template and list every required element (figure size, caption style, reference format). Mark which you already meet and which need work.
• Export all figures in the required format and place them in a “Figures” folder; rename them according to the template’s naming convention.
• Run a batch citation‑style conversion in your reference manager, then export the bibliography and scan for “? ?” placeholders.
• Draft the interdisciplinary significance sentence in a separate document; set a timer for 45 minutes and stop when you have a sentence that mentions at least two fields.

Checking these boxes early saves you from scrambling later. Skipping any of them almost always adds at least an extra day of work.

“I thought the reference list was the only thing that needed fixing. The figure‑size issue alone ate half my weekend.” – a recent graduate.

Actionable takeaway: allocate a dedicated 2‑hour “hidden‑tasks audit” on day 2 and treat its output as non‑negotiable.

What is the absolute minimum‑viable manuscript you can submit if the deadline looms?

If you reach day 7 and still have a few pages to trim, you can still meet the journal’s deadline by stripping the manuscript down to its essential scaffold. The goal is to preserve the logical argument while shedding everything that the journal does not explicitly require.

Start by identifying three core components that cannot be removed:

1. The concise research question and hypothesis.
2. The results that directly answer that question (no supplementary analyses).
3. The discussion that links those results to the interdisciplinary significance.

Everything else becomes optional. Background paragraphs that repeat what is already in your introduction can be collapsed into a single sentence. Detailed methodological nuances that belong in a methods supplement can be referenced as “see supplementary material” and omitted from the main text. Tables that duplicate information already shown in a figure can be removed entirely.

Here is a quick “cut‑list” you can run through in an hour:

• Delete any paragraph that does not contain a citation or a direct link to your results.
• Replace multi‑sentence literature reviews with a single “We build on X et al. (2020) and Y et al. (2021).”
• Merge “Limitations” and “Future Directions” into one concise paragraph of 80–100 words.
• Condense each figure caption to the essential description; move methodological details to a footnote or supplementary file.

After you have the skeleton, spend the remaining hours polishing language, checking APA 7 compliance, and running the plagiarism checker. Even if the manuscript feels sparse, reviewers often appreciate a clear, well‑structured argument over a bloated draft.

For instance, a sociology PhD candidate reduced a 45‑page discussion to 19 pages by cutting three background sections, merging two limitation paragraphs, and moving a detailed statistical table to an online supplement. The final manuscript passed the journal’s initial screening on the third day of the final week.

Bottom line: if you must cut, keep the research question, the key results, and the interdisciplinary hook; everything else is expendable for the deadline.