With the analysis and interpretation complete, we should have a list of major findings and a list of minor findings. For the major findings, we should have thoughtfully written conclusions [interpretations or "so what"]. Based upon the research experience, we should have particular recommendations for future research with some emphasis on filling gaps in what we know about this topic.
Findings are relatively straight-forward, but we need to be careful not to report findings for variables that seem to have little importance.
Conclusions begin with which hypotheses or expected relationships were supported and which were not. In quantitative research, this discussion will likely include statements on the degree to which relationships were significant [generalizable] and the strength of that relationship.
Your log or diary should be helpful in identifying problems encountered, solutions adopted, and decisions made for the methodology section of your paper.
You do and some of your family members and friends may also care. Action research will be well received by administrators if it helps to solve a problem. However, in academe the interest is in publication and not in the research itself. Research is incomplete unless it is shared and made available for public scrutiny. Status and visibility is based on publication.
Research may be shared in various ways, including presentations at conferences and meetings. Still, the best sharing mode is via publication in a refereed publication. Ideally, you checked with editors and gained some sense of their interest before the research was begun. If not, it is not too late to send out inquiry letters. The research publication rule is that a paper may be submitted only to one periodical at a time. If the review process takes several months followed by a rejection you can see that the research may quickly lose its timeliness. Inquiry letters, however, may be sent to several periodicals at once.
Be careful in selecting where to send your paper. Examine recent issues to see what sort of papers they publish. Talk to knowledgeable colleagues who have recently published or who may have contacts.
Most scholarly periodicals have a fairly high rejection rate. Editors and referees are not always objective and interested in new topics or approaches. Be prepared to handle rejection if it comes and don't throw in the towel or refuse to check your mail box.
Copy one or two recent articles published in this periodical and become very familiar with layout and organization. Get a recent copy of the periodical's instructions to the author directions. Follow them exactly.
Nearly all scientific papers have a standard format sometimes called IMRAD.
These elements answer questions that the reader is likely to ask:
"What will the reader know about your topic and your research method?" The answer to this question will determine how much background information that you will need to provide. Another good question is "what will the reader find most useful in my findings and conclusions?"
The title should be indicative and should clearly indicate topic and scope. Avoid abbreviations and initialisms. The title should be brief and use the fewest possible words that adequately describe paper content. Insure that each word is needed. Avoid word wasters such as "studies on, investigations on, analysis of, characteristics of" and the like. Use specific rather than general terms. The title of a paper is a label and not a sentence.
Only those who made a major contribution to the completed product should be included. Co-authors may add considerable strength, substance, and a fresh perspective. They also introduce complications. Note that co-authors do not have to be co-writers. Who writes and edits the final MSS will depend on time and writing skill among other variables.
Others who were helpful should receive credit in the acknowledgements section.
The order of the authors should be agreed before the research begins in order to avoid ill will later. Typically, the first author receives more credit than the second one. Ways of ordering may include:
Institutional affiliation adds creditability and some status to authors [depending upon the institution]. This may have a role in co-authors and author ordering.
The introduction begins with the problem statement. The problem should be clearly identified in nature and scope in the first paragraph. Why it is a problem and why the problem is important should also receive attention.
There should be enough background to convince the reader that the topic is well worth exploring, to set the stage, but no more than that. A common error among beginning researchers is to bog down in this section of the research report.
Following the problem statement and context, the researcher sets forth the purpose of the research and what will be done. Be careful because this may serve as a yardstick for those who measure the success of the research project.
The introduction ought to be informative enough so that the reader can understand and evaluate your work without needed to refer to anything else.
Ideally, the interested reader ought to be able to replicate your study from the information found in this section. Be precise and include enough details to do this or indicate early in this section that this information is available from the author.
Normally, you would present your hypotheses in this section since they will guide the method.
This sections answers three fundamental questions:
Select a level of detail appropriate for your audience. If in doubt, review the methods section of similar papers published in the target periodical [the one where you hope to be published]. Ordinary statistical methods or test should be used without comment or explanation. However, it the method was recently used in a published study, you should add a reference for that.
When finished with this section, ask a colleague or two to review it for logic and clarity.
Before you began this section, you should have reviewed all of your findings and placed them in one of two sections: major findings and minor findings. Major findings are essential and useful. You focus your limited space on reporting on these. If there are a reasonable number of interesting but minor findings, provide a foot or end note saying that information on these is available from the author.
This is the most important section of the paper. The evidence that you provide here is what the reader is most interested in. Here you will describe your findings. The section is data oriented and does NOT include interpretation.
Tables, charts, and graphs are better for presenting findings than text. Do not construct tables unless there is a reasonable amount of data to be presented. Use no more digits than are necessary. Be consistent in how you present the data and the labels that you use. Say it only once in text or in table or in graph. You may use text to briefly summarize a somewhat complex chart, table, or graph, but you do not present the same information in various formats.
If there is any sort of a trend or an interesting "picture," use a graph. If the numbers just sit there, use a table. Charts and graphs make the report more interesting and grab the reader's attention. However, they must be well-designed, informative, and reproduce well.
This section would also include suggestions for further research. Some to many readers will skip the results section and begin thoughtful reading here. Discuss the results, but do not repeat them in any detail. The point is to add interpretation or "so what" to the major findings in the previous section.
Although not always done, you may briefly comment on deficiencies in this report and relate those to suggestions for further research.
There is a natural order:
Briefly identify those who were helpful, including local institutional help and funding agencies. You may wish to ask first to see if these individuals or organizations wish to be associated with your work, but that is not usually done.
Publishers have very specific standards for these so follow their instructions to the authors exactly. Better to have a recent article or two from your periodical to check.
Unless you are certain about common knowledge, substantiate statements related to what you know about a particular problem or issue. Never cite a reference unless you have read the original. Only cite items that were both important and useful. There is no need to demonstrate that you have examined every possible item on the topic, although you may wish to do that in your dissertation.
Here place supporting material that is not critical to understanding the text, but that will interest some readers. Instruments such as an interview schedule or a questionnaire are good examples. This improves the flow and readability of the main text.
This is written at the end because only then do you know exactly what you did and exactly what you found. Follow the examples found the similar periodical articles. Normally, do not exceed 125 words for shorter papers and 250 words for longer papers. Another perspective is that the abstract should not be greater than five percent of the article length.
This is formatted as one paragraph. It is limited to intellectual content that appears in the paper. There should be no unidentified abbreviations, initialisms, or references.
Abstracts come in two flavors:
These are also sometimes called "indicative" and are a kind of table of contents presented in a narrative style.
These summarize the main problem, method, findings, and conclusions. This is the most common model. You want to help the reader to make a relevance decision, but you don't want them to substitute reading the abstract for reading the whole article.
Do not repeat the title on this page. Be specific in your comments. Don't say "a few" when you could say 10.5 percent. Do use complete sentences. Be concise, but not telegraphic. Follow the organization of the article.
Briefly describe the nature and scope of your completed paper. This is essentially a succinct version of the abstract. In the second paragraph, clearly indicate why you believe that the paper is appropriate for this periodical and this audience. Finally, confirm that the research paper is original and has not been published.
The time between submission and publication varies from periodical to periodical. Seven months would be short and 24 months would be long. More popular titles will have less time lag than scholarly ones. Remember that the ethical understanding is that you submit your paper to one periodical at a time. Query letters, however, may be sent to multiple periodicals at the same time.
Referees vary in how quickly they review and return a MSS to the editor. Some will take several months while others take just a few weeks. Ordinarily, two referees would read your paper with the editor being the tie-breaker if that is needed.
Only about five percent of submitted papers are accepted without change so expect to be asked to make changes. You always have the option of making changes or defending your position not to make them. Generally, publication is more likely if you make most of the requested changes. Often, the revised paper is stronger and better.
If you paper is rejected, you should be ready to send it to a second periodical. Rejections may be made for a variety of reasons. Rejection does not usually mean that your research is unworthy. Rather, editors have limited space and publish articles felt to be more interesting to readers.
