Uncategorized

Research contribution. The research contribution of a paper is what it adds to existing knowledge. Is this trail-blazing research that goes where none have gone before or is it just a follow-up on prior expeditions? Either way, state the research contribution. Don’t assume it is obvious. Make clear how this research adds value, as if it doesn’t add value, why did you do it? The research purpose just given should provide a clue and ideally the purpose leads on directly to the contribution! It may be a problem that affects many people, a topic is relatively unexplored, or a method that hasn’t been applied to this topic before. Or perhaps a well–known result is not well understood, so the contribution is on a theory level. Explicitly stating the contribution is critical to publishing as every reviewer looks for it, so don’t ignore this.

Uniqueness. Another angle is to ask yourself how does my research differ from what others have done? What is new or unique about it? Is it testing a new aspect of current theory or existing findings? Is the sample size bigger than ever before? Draw attention to whatever is different about the research, as being different helps the paper stand out in the crowd.

Possible research contributions include:

• Adds new knowledge. Explores a new area.
• Tests theories. Data to test competing theories.
• Description. Better describes a construct.
• New method. Applies a new method to gather data.
• New analysis. Applies a new analysis to data.
• Review. Contrasts and compares existing theory and data.
• Replication. Repeats a previous study.
• New application. Applies current theory to a new problem.

Science  Writing  Review  Glossary Checklist  Next

Well-written. A paper is well-written if the text, figures, tables and graphs are easy to understand and pleasant to read.

An easy to understand paper delivers its meaning for relatively little effort. In cost-benefit terms, readers don’t need to put in a lot of effort to understand it. The text doesn’t use 100 words to say what can be said in 10, doesn’t use complex words when simple ones will do and doesn’t use convoluted grammar styles that are hard to parse. Figures, tables and graphs have simple and clear titles and labels.

A pleasant to read paper doesn’t annoy the reader due to its language or layout. Text follows the rules of spelling and grammar, and formats such as italics, bold and ALLCAPS are used appropriately. Commas and brackets are used as necessary and not overused. Plurals and tenses are used correctly. Figures, tables and graphs are laid out according to guidelines that readers expect.

Well-written can also be called “Clarity of presentation”, “Well laid out”, “Conformance to guidelines”, “Readable”, “Professionalism”, “Correct spelling and grammar”, “Clarity of tables, figures and exhibits” and “Quality of writing”. Being well-written answers the reader concern “Is reading this worth the effort?” Writing well is important because people do judge by appearances, e.g. they assume that those who can’t spell correctly also can’t think correctly. Spelling or grammar errors early in a paper suggest a lack of expertise so readers may then look for (and find) further faults. Always run a spell-check last thing and have a native language speaker read the paper if it is not your first language.

KIS. Stands for Keep it Simple, a well-known army adage. As my instructors advised me:

• Tell them what you are going to tell them.
• Tell them.
• Tell them what you just told them.

In general, every writing section should have a beginning that introduces it, a body that presents content, and an end that summarizes.

Tips. Writing well is a complex skill, but here are some simple tips:

• One idea per sentence. Cramming many ideas into one sentence reduces understandability, e.g. this sentence should be broken down into several sentences “The EMRs of patients who met the national guideline age, gender and ethnicity criteria for CVD risk assessment and who had visited their GP within a four week period, starting one month after the GP had first used Predict (post-Predict) and the equivalent patients visiting their GP within the same four week period, one year earlier (pre-Predict) were audited.”
• Active sentences. Where possible, use active subject-verb-object rather than passive object-verb-subject sentences, e.g. instead of “The effects of the treatment were obtained from the subjects by interview” write “Subject interviews explored the effects of the treatment.”
• Don’t be abstruse. Avoid sentences like “Beyond, in consideration of particular subject-matters the bulk of participants led to diverse clusters.” An academic reviewer who reads a sentence like this concludes you can’t write clearly not that you are smart.
• KIS. A sentence like “Although, we as humans comprehend different forms of energy, like kinetic , involving mass and motion (m, s, t) and potential, which is a storage concepts and the practical applications of electricity,(micro and macro transmissions) and light.” is so convoluted it is not even a sentence. Note also the incorrect plurality and incorrect commas. 
• Limit the use of “I”. Using personal pronouns like “I” too much reduces the impartiality, e.g. write “The cases I considered were …” as “The cases considered were …”
• Brevity. Instead of saying “Upon seeing the events occurring around him Jesus wept.” the bible just writes “Jesus wept.” Check each sentence for unnecessary words.
• Correct tense. The method describes what occurred in the past so use the past tense, e.g. Instead of “The mean score is 8.3.” write “The mean score was 8.3.”

Elements. To check if a paper is well-written, consider research elements such as:

• Is the title short and sweet, say 10-15 words?
• Is the abstract within the guideline, usually less than 300 words?
• Does the abstract state the purpose, method, findings and conclusions of the research?
• Are abbreviations given in full when first used?
• Is the topic referred to by one term consistently throughout?
• Is the publication type given early so the reader knows what to expect?
• Are there language errors, including spelling or grammar? (see above)
• Does each figure add enough value to warrant the space it takes up?
• Do figures, tables and graphs look professional?
• Are tables and figures numbered in correct sequence and referred to in the text?
• Are figure, table and graph titles meaningful?
• Do all tables have meaningful row and column headings?
• Are data values rounded off correctly, e.g. 2.53 instead of 2.53147?
• Do frequency tables show percentages that add up to 100% for each row?
• Is the graph type appropriate for the type of data it shows?
• Are graph axes clearly and meaningfully labelled?
• For graphs of causal relations, is the X axis the cause and the Y axis the effect?
• Are the main findings summarized in a list at the end of the results section?
• Do the text, headings, line spacing and margins conform to submission guidelines?

Science  Writing  Review  Glossary Checklist  Next

Original. Research is original if it is new in some way that differs from what has been done before. Any section can be original, as research may address a new problem, develop a new theory, use a new method or analysis, or discuss new applications or have new implications. Even a replication that repeats a previous study can be original if it is the first attempt, or if it varies a factor not considered before. Original research must differ in some way from what has gone before. To say what has been said many times before or discover what has already been discovered is not original. It can also be called “Contribution to the field”, “Uniqueness”, “Adds value” or “Newness”. Originality addresses the reader concern “Is there anything new here?” Research that is rare or unique is pioneering, as a pioneer is the first to explore a new area and discover new things. Originality is important because readers are attracted to what is new.

Elements. To check if a paper is original, consider research elements such as:

• Does it address a new problem?
• Is the chosen topic area relatively unexplored territory?
• Does the paper contribute new knowledge the reader can use elsewhere?
• Are the findings different in some way from what has gone before?
• What precisely is the paper’s general contribution?
• Is this study unique or rare in the field?
• Does it add value apart from what others have done?
• Does this research have the potential to grow?
• Is there a contribution to current theoretical understanding?
• Is a new theory or model proposed?
• Is the research question new?
• Is a new method or analysis theory used and described?
• Do the results differ from what one might expect based on current theory?
• Does the research have new implications for current knowledge in this area?
• Are new applications proposed?

Science  Writing  Review  Glossary Checklist  Next

Logical. Research is logical if ideas are presented in a rational manner without jumping to unfounded conclusions. Logic involves giving valid reasons before reaching a conclusion, so is essentially about the order in which ideas are presented. In a logical sequence, each idea follows from those that went before based on reason. Logic applies to paragraphs, sections and the paper as a whole, e.g. each section should follow from the one before and lead on to the next. Logic requires that assumptions be stated and the terms used be defined and used consistently throughout. It avoids contradictory statements. A logical flow of ideas progresses step by step to a conclusion based on accepted evidence. It can be called “A logical flow of argument”, “Organization of the manuscript”, “Objectives clear and well described”, “Well reasoned”, “Good arguments” and “Evidence supports arguments”. Logic answers the reader concern “Does this go anywhere?” An illogical paper is “everywhere and nowhere”. It rambles aimlessly and ends randomly for no reason. It is full of irrelevant side paths or “red herrings“ where the author loses the thread. Logic is important in academic writing because a sense of continuity that holds the reader to see where the logic is going is critical to holding the reader’s attention.

Paper structure. The structure of a research paper is how the overall logic unfolds. As shown in the figure, research begins broad, comes to a focus at the research question, then expands out again in the discussion. The linchpin of this process is the research question, perhaps why finalizing it can take up to half of the total research time of a PhD. When writing up research, it is important to understand where you are in the overall journey of ideas and connect the sections together into a logical argument:

• The introduction defines the literature review topic.
• The literature review theory derives a research question.
• The research question suggests the method used.
• The method gathers evidence to give results.
• The results give findings related to the research question.
• The findings give conclusions, applications and implications.

Examples. Many authors struggle with logic, so here are some examples:

• Inconsistent statements. A paper on online learning included the following:

a. “Asynchronous conversation in discussion boards, email and list servers extends the communication beyond the limitations of time and space to encourage deeper thinking.”

b. “The challenges of teaching online courses arise from the distance between the participants, whether between learners or between learners and instructors.”

If online interaction goes “beyond the limitation of .. space”, how can distance be a major challenge in online learning? The author is repeating ideas without thinking about them.

• Statements not based on evidence. The first quote above illustrates a “loose cannon” sentence, that asynchronous interaction promotes deeper thinking. This seems wrong, as thoughtless emails from students testify, but later it became apparent that the author meant that asynchronous interactions have deeper thinking than synchronous ones like chat, which may be true.
• Unnecessary repetition. When ideas are given one after another based on valid argument there is no need to repeat ideas, except to summarize. Each idea is presented in one place, then taken to be true as the argument moves on. A logical argument is not a polemic. I once reviewed a paper where the author advocated constructivism throughout. Since I already knew what constructivism was, it was like being continuously lectured on a subject you already understand. A logical approach would gather all the constructivism comments in one place, which would also help those who do not understand it.
• Faulty assumptions. In a paper on e-business, the abstract declared the report was on “the readiness of Canadian businesses to engage in e-business” but the paper was a study of 15 Nova Scotia businesses not Canadian businesses and the generalization from Nova Scotia businesses to Canadian businesses was not addressed.

Elements. To check if a paper is logical, consider research elements such as:

• Is the paper structured as a logical progression of ideas?
• Is the research purpose stated in a single sentence within the first few pages?
• Are there opinion statements that cannot withstand critical review?
• Is the research of others initially described impartially in its own terms?
• Are the papers discussed relevant to the research topic?
• Do the sections connect with each part leading on to the next part?
• Are there logical inconsistencies, where one statement contradicts another? (see above)
  
• Is the literature reviewed by issues, not merely as a sequential list of other research?
• Is the theory frame-work behind the research question stated, ideally with a diagram?
• Is the research question a single question that can be answered by evidence?
• What larger questions does this research address?
• Was the method chosen appropriate for the research question?
• Do the conclusions generalize from the findings?
• Do the conclusions address the research question?
• Does the discussion address the issues raised in the introduction?
• Are key terms defined and used consistently?

Science  Writing  Review  Glossary Checklist  Next

Comprehensive. Research is comprehensive if it sufficiently discusses previous research that relates to the research topic. To omit important research or to give only out of date references is not comprehensive. It can be called “Adequacy of literature review”, “Breadth of coverage”, “Sufficient and appropriate references”,“Theoretical/Conceptual base” or “Information content”. It answers the reader concern “How does this research fit with other’s work?” Comprehensiveness is important because science is collegial, i.e. based on the work of others. It also reflects that the author has taken the care to connect their work to that of others. To ask a question that others have answered shows one is uninformed and annoys informed readers, just as it does when people ask questions on bulletin boards that have already been answered elsewhere.

Elements. To check if a paper is comprehensive, consider research elements such as:

• Is the research scope well-defined?
• Does the literature review cover all important work in the field, old and new?
• Does the literature review only discuss what is relevant to the topic?
• Is research from other disciplines mentioned?
• What previous work, the author’s or another’s, does the paper build on as a precedent?
  
• Are ideas or words from others presented without quotes, as if they were the author’s?
• Are the references sufficient, of good quality and up-to-date?
• Are all citations quoted listed in the references?
• Is the research question well founded in theory?
• Is the theory used positioned with respect to other theories?

Science  Writing  Review  Glossary Checklist  Next

Rigorous. Rigor is the degree to which research has scientific merit and avoids bias in any form. It includes that the research design, measuring instruments,statistical methods and data analysis are correct and appropriate. It leads one to accept that the findings are valid and the conclusions are correct.It can be called“Scientific Merit”,“Quality of research design”, “Adequacy of data analysis”, “Validity of method”, “Legitimacy of conclusions”or “Conduct of research”. Rigor is based on following accepted scientific method, e.g. using the right statistics for the data gathered. It answers reader concerns like“Can I trust this?” and “Why should I believe the paper’s results?” Rigor is important because there is little point publishing results that people think have no foundation in evidence.

Elements. To check if a paper is rigorous, consider research elements such as:

•  Was there a pilot study to test any procedures and improve them?
•  Does the research design connect the results to the research question?
•  Did the research account for experimenter and subject bias?
•  Was a randomly allocated control group used?
•  Are the measures valid, i.e. represent what they purport to?
•  Are the measures reliable, i.e. able to be repeated?
•  Was the unit of research clear?
•  Is the evidence gathering procedure described step by step?
•  Is the task properly described?
•  Are any questions understandable, unambiguous, unbiased and answerable?
•  Are response scales easy to use, unbiased, exhaustive and sensitive?
•  What significance levels were used for the results?
•  What result evidence supports the paper’s claim?
•  How were missing values recorded?
•  Was the sample big enough and did it represent the population?
•  Are the statistics used appropriate?
•  Analysis assumptions stated and checked?

Science  Writing  Review  Glossary Checklist  Next

Relevant. Research is relevant if it is of interest to a given target audience, whether specialists in a field or society in general. It can be referred to as “Popularity of the subject”, “Likelihood of drawing and keeping an audience” or “Appropriateness for the Journal”. Relevance is often based on usefulness – whether others can use it to their benefit, e.g. cancer research that suggests a cure is relevant to doctors treating cancer sufferers. Relevance answers the question “Why should anyone bother reading this?” Relevance is important because there is little point in publishing what people don’t read.

Elements. To check if a paper is relevant, consider research elements such as:

• Does the title invite people to read the research?
• Is the topic one that might interest others?
• Does the introduction explain the background history of the topic?
• Do others relate to the research problem?
• Does it match the publisher’s target audience?
• Do the research conclusions affect others?
• Are there implications for current theories?
• Are the research applications useful to others?
• Can future research build upon this?

Science  Writing  Review  Glossary Checklist  Next

Reviewing. Reviewing is how scientists keep each other scientific. When a paper is done, it is submitted to an editor for publication, who passes it to anonymous reviewers who may recommend accept, minor revisions, major revisions or reject. Consider the following review of a conference paper:

I recommend a reject for this paper because I think it is too early to publish. I suggest that you spend more time on writing the paper to describe the research more coherently and completely.

Detailed comments:

1. You need to rewrite the introduction to not be a repeat of the abstract. …2. The paper is inconsistent regarding sample size. …3. There is no description of the paper structure in the introduction …4. Most of the references are old. Take the time to update your references on this topic. …5. You need to describe the study in more detail. …6. Reorganize the paper structure correctly. You mix up analysis, findings and discussion.…7. Remove imprecise statements, e.g. “more than four fifths” isn’t precise enough for research. …8. The term “visible minority” is not defined. …9. There are English spelling and grammar errors. Turn on “grammar and style” in Word. …11. The general conclusions are very weak.

It is hard to take rejection and criticism, but take a deep breath and do the following:

• Accept it. Appreciate that someone knowledgeable read your work and took the time to offer advice.
• Improve it. In science, a review is an opportunity to improve. Go through each point made and if you agree, improve the paper. If you don’t, make the case why in your reply to the editor. Either way, don’t ignore it! Even if the reviewer misunderstood, you can improve the paper so other readers don’t misunderstand in the same way.

Different publications ask reviewers to rate submissions by different criteria but in my experience, they reduce to different words for the following:

• Relevant. Is this of interest to the target audience? (Introduction, Discussion)
• Rigorous. Does this have scientific merit? (Method, Results)
• Comprehensive. Is previous knowledge recognized? (Literature review, Discussion)
• Logical. Are ideas logically structured and presented? (All)
• Original. Is something new presented, different from previous work? (All)
• Well written. Is it readable, understandable and presentable? (All)

Most editors want submission that are not only rigorous, logical and comprehensive but also relevant, original and well written, as these are not mutually exclusive. Click on the links to check each review aspect before submitting your paper!

Science  Writing  Review  Glossary Checklist  Next

Submission requirements. When you submit to any publisher, whether a University Thesis Committee or a journal, to not satisfy their submission requirements is to disrespect them. These may include:

• Font type and size, e. g. Times New Roman, 10 points.
• Page size and layout, e. g. A4 or letter page size, or columns.
• Allowed length, including of the abstract.
• If they provide a template, use it to take care of formatting issues.
• Reference style, e. g. IEEE numbered citations like [3] vs. APA citations like (Smith, 1960)
• Heading formats, e. g. a first level heading is … and a second level heading is …
• How to present figures, e. g. what format to use or what size.
• How to present tables and graphs.
• How to submit, e. g. an online system.

Before submitting to any publisher, check that all submission requirements have been met.

Science  Writing  Review  Glossary Checklist  Next

References. Referencing is to give a citation in the body of the paper, say author and date, and at the end of the paper provide a list of the full references. It is important because research reaches conclusions by referencing previous research in order to advance the author’s argument. Reviewers may judge the quality of a paper from the quality of its references including things like:

• Do citations give page numbers?
• Are author names spelled correctly?
• Are major works in the field referenced?
• Are the references up to date?
• Are there journal references, not just books, web sites or magazines?

It is not acceptable to cite a 600-page book that discusses many things as support for a specific statement without giving a page number. One need not be too “trendy”, as research is not a fashion show, but recent references show the paper is up to date. References should reflect the quality, breadth and recency of the research.

Use a reference database. Different research formats are very particular about how each reference should be structured, so it can take a long time to manually write up a reference list. If you submit to another journal with a different reference standard, the same references have to rewritten in a different format. It pays to use software that can automatically transform any reference in its database into any reference format, e.g. Zotero is free, open source, reference management software that lets you paste in-text citations and then automatically generates a reference list from them, based on word processors such as Microsoft Word, LibreOffice and OpenOffice.

Science  Writing  Review  Glossary Checklist  Next