Cfrgtkky

I wonder how a researcher send an unsolicited email to another one asking for feedback to their work. I guess it will be something like this?

Hello Dr. X

To introduce myself, I am Y, in institute Z. I'm sorry if this email is not convenient at this time, but my work about A is highly relevant to your work in B, so I think it will be interesting to you too. If possible, can you take a look at it and tell me what you think? Here is the link: Human interaction with cats

Thank you for your reading, hope you enjoy it.

I wonder if the summary/abstract should be included in the email too, since the principle for asking good question is to show everything you know about it. Maybe it's not necessary, since the title of the link should prove its interestingness nevertheless? I'd like to have your confirm.

I'm also interested in the case where Y has no Z, and the link is just a collection of observations posted in a blog, not a full paper with proper citation and literary review. It is possible that the observations may have been covered in the field, but Y isn't aware of that yet.

I also think that if the link is interesting enough, then putting a tracking method in there is fine too? Even if they finds out, they wouldn't feel insulted either, because they find that the link is indeed interesting.

<sup>Related:

• Is it appropriate (as a PhD student) to email other researchers asking about some details in their papers?

• Is it appropriate to drop by another university's professor's lecture to talk about research afterwards?

• What are the strategies for getting feedback on articles?</sup>

Hello Dr. X

To introduce myself, I am Y, in institute Z.

I have recently published some work on A [this should be a short
description, not just a title. do keep it short though (1-2 short sentences)].

I enjoyed reading your work on B. [now 1-3 short feedback sentences. don't go too much into detail, but make sure it shows you read the work]

I think my work might be of
interest to you, too. If you do find time to read it, any feedback
would be greatly appreciated.

My work is less than f pages/g characters (one of those two. don't use exact numbers for characters but round up to the next good looking number. don't use a font size of 8 and a big textblob without any line breaks and say it's only two pages long though ;)) long and really shouldn't take a lot of time to read through.

Link: Human interaction with cats [also as attachment in pdf form]

This would be a mail that might make me read what you wrote. (strongly depending on how relevant/interesting your description actually was)

There are several differences to your initial draft:

• No apologizing: You apologize when you did something wrong. Apologizing while you do it is an odd thing to consider polite, especially when you're apologizing for bothering someone as that person having to read through your apology is actually wasting more of his time ;) Also, it makes me feel like you're asking something unreasonable. If it wasn't, why would you have to apologize?




• Don't mention it's highly relevant to his work: When he reads your short description, he will know if it's relevant to his work or not. You should never tell someone what is or isn't relevant to him, especially when you're trying to get them to do something for you.




• Return the favor: I'm assuming that you did read his work. Otherwise how would you know it was 'highly relevant'? Also, if you're asking him to read your work and give you feedback, it's nice if you do the same for him. If you are coming from a... let's call it lower position though, just mention what you found interesting about it and don't give actual criticism. Bonus points if you mention parts that overlap with your work.




• Attachment: Now this point is debatable, as some people are more careful with attachments than with links, but for me it's the other way around. If someone sends me a link it might very well decrease the chance of me reading it. But like I said, different people are different. You also need to make sure that your attachment has a sensible name and is of course virus free if you do choose to go this route.




• Needed time: This part is based on some info in one of your comments. Since your work doesn't appear to be very long, you should definitely mention that. If someone wrote me a mail asking for feedback on work they did on something (in academia) I would expect it to be a full paper with complicated calculations I'd have to understand. Meaning a huge commitment of time. So that one sentence really makes a lot of difference. That being said, I feel like page/character count is sligthly better than telling me how much time I will need to read it. You have no idea how fast I read or how much I have to look up. I do.

I also think that if the link is interesting enough, then putting a
tracking method in there is fine too?

No! Apart from spam filters, if I find out, I will never follow any link you send me in the future again, no matter how interesting your link was. If you really feel the need to do this, at the very least tell me so upfront, before I follow your link.

It's also very difficult to measure interesting enough.

The real answer is that they don't. I'm sorry, but I can't slice it any other way. You would need all the planets to align in order to receive an answer after such an email. You are asking someone who doesn't know you and who is probably very busy (like all academics) to provide you a big favor for nothing in return. Because let's be honest, giving feedback on someone else's work is taxing. The best case scenario is that you get very vague and superficial feedback about the first page of your paper.

Instead, ask your colleagues, or people you have already built a rapport with (an advisor or former advisor, a collaborator...). Or do it the hard way and submit it for publication. You will get (anonymous) feedback. But make sure first that your paper is close to being ready for publication, because you don't want a desk rejection, and you don't want to be known as that person who wastes referees' time by submitting drafts.

Essentially, you have three challenges that work against you receiving an answer to this mail:

1. You need to avoid your mail to appear like academic spam. Your email draft is rather good in that sense because it is short, nicely written, and free of the usual keywords that trigger people's mental spam filter ("submit your article", "endorse this and that", and so on). However, adding a tracking mechanism is certainly not a good idea for this reason alone.


2. You need to avoid appearing like a quack. Both, not pointing to an actual paper and not currently working at a university work against you in that regard. While I agree with Dan that it "should" not matter in principle, I am afraid in practice it will. I assume most recipients are considerably more likely to open an email sent from a person working at a reputable university pointing at an arxiv link or journal paper than a mail from a person without affiliation sending them a link to their personal blog.


3. It needs to be clear enough why it should be a priority for the recipient to read what you sent them. Quite frankly, something being interesting to my work is not enough - my to-read list currently contains some 50 or so papers, all of which are presumably interesting to my work (and some of which I need to review). There just never is enough time to actually read all of them. I think your chances of moving to the top of this list are higher if (a) there is a clear question (that is interesting to me) in the email, and (b) the material is short enough that I can read and comment within half an hour or less.

Hello Dr. X
To introduce myself, I am Y, in institute Z.

Looks good so far.

I'm sorry if this email is not convenient at this time, but my work about A is highly relevant to your work in B, so I think it will be interesting to you too.

Why are you “sorry”? I think it’s a mistake to apologize or use words that suggest you feel you are doing something wrong for sending the email. Sending the email is fine, and conversely, if you really were doing something wrong, then you shouldn’t send it.

If possible, can you take a look at it and tell me what you think?

This seems rude to me and decreases the chance (which admittedly is in any case quite small) that you will receive meaningful feedback. This person doesn’t owe you anything, so don’t ask them to do something: they will either do it because they are naturally inclined to do it, or they won’t. I would say instead “I welcome any comments or feedback you might have.”

Also, if you must ask a question, “what do you think?” is a bad question to ask since it is completely open-ended. Make the question precise and specific.

Here is the link: Human interaction with cats
Thank you for your reading, hope you enjoy it.

This part looks good.

I wonder if the summary/abstract should be included in the email too, since the principle for asking good question is to show everything you know about it. Maybe it's not necessary, since the title of the link should prove its interestingness nevertheless? I'd like to have your confirm.

Keep it as short as possible. You already said the work is about A and is related to the recipient’s work on B. I don’t think any more information is necessary. If you really think anything more should be added, write something that’s tailored specifically to the person you’re sending the email to and to their interests instead of a pasted summary.

I'm also interested in the case where Y has no Z, and the link is just a collection of observations posted in a blog, not a full paper with proper citation and literary review. It is possible that the observations may have been covered in the field, but Y isn't aware of that yet.

This shouldn’t matter. Blogs can be just as interesting as finished papers, just include the link and a description of your affiliation if you have one.

I also think that if the link is interesting enough, then putting a tracking method in there is fine too? Even if X finds out, they wouldn't feel insulted either, because they find that the link is indeed interesting.

If I noticed a tracking mechanism in the link, I would delete the email immediately, so I would never get to find out if the content was interesting. (There’s also a chance the email would be filtered by various spam filters, and some mail software might preload the link contents so you would think that it was viewed even when it wasn’t. So it’s a bad idea on multiple levels.)