Uncategorized

The purpose of any research defines what it hopes to achieve. In knowledge journey terms, it is the planned destination, so naturally people want to know that early. Experienced reviewers look for a statement that begins: “This paper aims to …” or “The goal of this research is …” and expect to find it within the first page or two. Finding several differently stated purposes is a bad sign, as an academic publication should have a single purpose, stated in a single sentence. More is not better when it comes to the research purpose! The purpose should answer the first question of every reader – what is this publication about? State the research purpose in a single sentence within the first few pages.

Research problem. The research problem is the practical problem that the research addresses. Behind every purpose is a problem, e.g. cancer research is based on the problem of cancer. There are also “pure” theoretical problems in symbolic domains like mathematics. If there is no problem, why is this research being done? Research does not take place in a reality vacuum. Stating a problem in your research domain answers the question of “Why do this research?” The answer to the reader question “Why should I bother reading this?” is often “Because this problem is important.” It also engages the reader in a practical way by focusing on what concerns them. Highlighting a problem attracts attention, invokes interest and engages the reader. It naturally leads into stating the research purpose shortly after. State the problem the research addresses and its relevance to the reader.

In summary, a research purpose should be:

• Problem-based. To tell the reader why the research is important.
• Singular. Other purposes are best left to other research.
• Clear. If you can’t clearly state where you are going, what chance of getting there?
• Maintained. Keep the same goal throughout, as maintenance of the aim is the first principle of war.

  Science  Writing  Review  Glossary Checklist Next

The topic defines the research subject area, for readers who want to know if the paper is in their area of interest. Even if the title gives it, state the topic again early. Never assume, as authors familiar with their topic often do, that the topic is obvious. It is never so obvious that you don’t need to state it.

Choose one topic and use the same words to refer to it throughout the publication, e. g. technology acceptance, technology diffusion and technology evaluation are different topics with different target audiences. Don’t use different terms to refer to the same thing in an interchangeable way just for “variety”. Academics dislike this because a topic can “morph” into something else as the paper processes, e. g. I once reviewed a thesis that began with the topic of technology evaluation (of existing products) in the literature review, but then gathered technology market research (of potential products) data in the method. To avoid such problems, refer to your topic in terms that are consistent throughout.

Background history. Review the topic history to “warm-up” readers by giving unarguable facts that “set the stage”. Give a background that explains how the current situation arose in a way that everyone accepts. Don’t argue any point of view here, just record the past as a good historian might. Good papers always “tell a story” so give some history to connect the present to the past and show that you are aware of the history. Give a brief background history to introduce the research.

Science  Writing  Review  Glossary Checklist  Next

The abstract briefly summarizes the research to give readers a preview of what is to come. Like the title, it must be correct but it is also an opportunity to attract potential readers, i.e. “market” your paper. It is usually a single paragraph of 100-300 words that outlines at least the topic, method, findings and research conclusions. It should stand alone, so don’t use terms or abbreviations that are only defined in the paper and don’t use citations as these require access to the references section. Since the abstract may appear in a list that readers peruse, keep it simple and to the point. Make it useful, so avoid meaningless statements like “This paper gathers data relevant to current theories and analyses it“. Take the opportunity to highlight what is interesting, new or the value the paper adds. Finally, take care to use the relevant keywords that someone interested in this topic might search for.

Don’t tease readers. The goal of the abstract is to give information not to tease readers to read on. So instead of saying “This paper draws several critical conclusions“, actually state the conclusions. Don’t think: “If I give my findings in the abstract, they won’t read on.” If your abstract gives no value, people won’t read on either. It should give enough information to make it worth reading the paper in depth.

What to include. An abstract usually gives at least:

• Topic, e. g. “This paper investigates user control as a factor in technology acceptance.”
• Method, e.g. “based on a protocol analysis of people facing new software.”
• Findings, e.g. “Systems that gave people more control were more accepted by experienced users.”
• Conclusions, e.g. “In allocating user control over the software, designers need to consider the experience level of the target audience.”

In summary, an abstract should at least give the topic, method, findings and conclusions of the research so a reader can decide whether to read the paper in depth. Ideally it also says why one should read it.

Science  Writing  Review  Glossary Checklist  Next

The first author is usually the person who directed the research and did the most work, and other authors typically follow in order of contribution. In general, authorship requires:

• A research contribution,
• A writing contribution, and
• Responsibility for the final version.

All three are required. An author is someone who has participated in the research journey, the write-up, and believes in it. A good rule of thumb is that co-authors understand the paper well enough to present it at a conference and respond to questions. If not, recognize them by acknowledgement rather than authorship. Just reviewing a paper, or making a useful suggestion, does not in itself entitle authorship, nor does helping in the research but not the write-up.

Establish author order initially. Author order can be a bone of contention so it often pays to agree on it at the start, along with the responsibilities involved. If the author order is not clear initially, rest assured it will not get less so as time goes by. Knowing where they stand lets people tailor their contribution as they see fit.

The publication mill. In academia, promotions depend on publications, so maximizing them is a way to get ahead. Some aim to join research groups to free-ride, i.e. get credit while not adding value. Others specialize in having a “bright idea” and getting a sucker to do the work while they claim “authorship”. Be aware that ideas are cheap but turning them into research takes time and effort. Research is a knowledge journey and those who fake it never even start.

Always ask permission. Don’t add a power player in your department to the author list to ensure their political patronage in your future, as this is academic corruption. The success of science is based on it being a meritocracy not an aristocracy. If you accept fake authors on your publication what next, fake data? If in doubt whether someone barely involved in the research should be an author, ask the other authors what they think. Or ask the person directly – they may say “Why? I didn’t do anything.” Research is about the unknown future not past precedence or current academic power.

Seniority. A feature of academic publishing is that author order is often based on contribution not seniority, so professors often put a student’s name first because they did most of the work, even if the idea was the advisors. Students learn a more when they are first authors. The aim is to list authors in order of research contribution not seniority.

Acknowledgements. The acknowledgements section goes at the end just before the references but it is covered here because it relates to authorship. It is important to acknowledge those who helped the paper, whether an assistant who helped gather data or a colleague who edited it. Also mention any companies that helped and especially acknowledge any grant support from institutions. Acknowledge those who have helped the research.

Science  Writing  Review  Glossary Checklist  Next

The title is the first part of a work that a reader sees. It describes what the research is about but ideally does more than that. It must be correct and not misleading, but since it may be seen among other titles in a Google list, it should also stand out as interesting to attract more readers. Finally it must be meaningful to actually convey what the paper is about. Using scientific terms only known to experts will limit your audience to those experts. The title should correctly describe the research in a meaningful and interesting way that invites the reader to read on. The requirements are:

• Correct. Correctly tells the reader about the research.
• Interesting. Focuses on what is interesting to others.
• Meaningful. As easy to read as possible, with minimum jargon.

Don’t be misled into a catchy title that is interesting but not meaningful, e.g. “When healthcare goes bad” is catchy but doesn’t tell what the paper is about. Equally “An investigation of medical misadventures that increase the level of claims making and reduce social and clinical selectivity based on patient self-reporting in suburban clinics” gives too many boring details. A title that uses jargon like “Variability-Aware Parsing in the Presence of Lexical Macros and Conditional Compilation” is technically correct but limits readers to other experts in the field. Don’t raise expectations the paper doesn’t satisfy, e.g. a paper on “The New Revolution in Higher Education” needs to make the case that there really is a “revolution”. Don’t take the easy path of a deliberately vague title that says little, e.g. “Power in the modern milieu” says nothing about what was found and no-one knows what a milieu is. It is like an empty name badge that says “Hello, my name is …” but gives no name. Such “empty label” titles are surprisingly common unfortunately. A good research title is typically around 10 to 15 words long.

The top 20 most popular academic papers of 2016 were:

1. United States health care reform: progress to date and next steps 
2. Medical error – the third leading cause of death in the US
3. Observation of gravitational waves from a binary black hole merger
4. Evidence for a distant giant planet in the solar system
5. Sugar industry and coronary heart disease research: a historical analysis of internal industry documents
6. Zika virus and birth defects – reviewing the evidence for causality
7. The association between income and life expectancy in the United States, 2001-2014
8. Effect of wearable technology combined with a lifestyle intervention on long-term weight loss  
9. Mastering the game of Go with deep neural networks and tree search
10. The new world atlas of artificial night sky brightness
11. Evidence for a limit to human lifespan
12. The terrorist inside my husband’s brain
13. The antibody aducanumab reduces Aβ plaques in Alzheimer’s disease
14. Trends in adult body-mass index in 200 countries from 1975 to 2014
15. Contribution of Antarctica to past and future sea-level rise
16. Does physical activity attenuate, or even eliminate, the detrimental association of sitting time with mortality?
17. Human commensals producing a novel antibiotic impair pathogen colonization
18. The brain adapts to dishonesty
19. The third international consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock (sepsis-3)
20. Zika virus associated with microcephaly

All these papers correctly describe what the paper is about in an interesting and meaningful way. Some give a brief title and then add a sub-title after a colon or hyphen. All cases give the research topic, such as health care, medical error or gravitational waves, and most mention causes that might affect it, e.g. if I am interested in weight loss, I might read #8 to find out how wearable technology affects it. An interesting exercise is to identify the cause and effect in each title, e.g. the subject of #18 is dishonesty and the cause investigated is brain adaptation. Now look at your own research and brainstorm your own title.

Next

Discussion. The discussion considers what the results mean. The paper comes full circle by referring back to the purpose given in the introduction. While results address the research question focus, the discussion addresses the broader issues raised in the introduction and literature review. It is your chance to speculate, generalize, extrapolate and explore implications, so use it! This part of the paper lets you spread your wings and say what you like without having to justify every word, so take advantage and be original!

• Conclusions. Discuss findings in the broader context.
• General Contribution. Repeat and expand on the contribution. 
• What next? Suggest future research.
• Submission. Check submission requirements.

  Science  Writing  Review  Glossary Checklist Next

Results. The results section describes how raw data from the method was analyzed to give findings. The analysis condenses gathered raw data into a base data set and then into a few key findings that follow directly (see Figure). The aim is to reduce a lot of information into the essential findings. The results section can involve:

Data types. All analysis is based on data types.

Result description. Describe basic results, including overall data, sample and individual variables.

Correlations. Summarize what constructs go together.

Causation. Analyze causal relations.

Findings. Argue and list the key findings of the data.

Science  Writing  Review  Glossary Checklist  Next

The method is how one intends to answer the research question based on evidence from outside oneself. Scientists describe their method so that others can follow in their footsteps. For formal sciences like mathematics, the method based on formal logic is so well known it is not usually described. For the natural sciences, the method varies considerably and so must be described. Aspects of the method include:

• Method type.
• Gathering data.
• Procedure.
• Sample.
• Research design.
• Bias.
• Questionnaires.

See a textbook like Essentials of Behavioral Research: Methods and Data Analysis, 2007, by Robert Rosenthal and Ralph Rosnow for full coverage.

Science  Writing  Review  Glossary Checklist  Next

The literature review defines the research question that is the linchpin of the paper based on the topic and purpose. It defines key terms used to avoid confusion and ideally concludes with a theory framework based on past research. To see theory as “just thoughts” is to ignore that every question has a theory foundation just as every mathematical theorem has foundational axioms. Good research is based on asking the right questions and the literature review frames the question asked. Asking the right question is hard because changing the theory context changes the question, e.g. asking “What causes headaches?” assumes all “headaches” are the same, which a literature review shows is not true, so the question must  change. The research question comes at the end of the literature review that derives it.

The literature review also positions your research relative to the work of others. It explores the agreements, disputes and omissions of others to derive the research question. It is the academic version of what computing calls system analysis and the military call intelligence – analyzing the current situation in order to decide what to do next. In journey terms, you don’t want to “discover” what others have already found, or if others have been there you want to know the problems found. How can you advance research if you don’t know where it currently is? A PhD literature review must be state-of-the-art, so by the end of it, you should know more than your advisor! For a while, you become a world expert on your topic in order to advance it. So don’t be dismayed if that takes time, e.g. several years is quite normal.

Aspects of good literature review include:

• Scope. Define the boundaries of the topic area.
• Collegiality.  Describe important and relevant research by others.
• Logical flow. Discuss the literature in a logical way.
• Theory Framework. Connects the concepts behind the research question.
• Research Question. State the question the research addresses. 

  Science  Writing  Review  Glossary Checklist  Next

Introduction. The introduction gives the general context of the research, to answer questions like:

What is this research about?

Who is it by?

Why was it done?

How did it originate?

Who is it for?

While some people read only the title and some only the abstract, many use the introduction to decide whether to read on. The introduction is like a “business plan”, that presents a case to the reader that this paper is worth reading. The introductory parts of a research paper include the following:

• Title. The name of the research.
• Author(s). Who carried out the research.
• Abstract. A brief summary of the whole paper.
• Topic. The research topic area and its background history.
• Purpose. The research purpose and the problem it addresses.
• Research Contribution. How the research adds value to what exists already.
• Target Audience. The target audience for this publication.
• Publication Type. The publication type tells the reader the paper’s structure.

To repeat, the above are not required headings, nor is the order critical. They are just what an introduction usually covers.

Science  Writing  Review  Glossary Checklist  Next