new enterprise writers society (news) school of...

New Enterprise Writers Society (NEWS)School of Educational Studies


- Poor writing

- Too long for an article

- Do not make mini-thesis

- Headings far from content

- Abstract is an obligatory part of the paper

- Use terms consequently – develop working definitions

General comments


- The intention of the authors must be explained here clearly.

Literature review

- The key papers in the area are not reviewed.

- The research gap is not mentioned. For instance, what has not been covered in the previous research, and how the current research can bridge the gap. Therefore, the novelty of the research is unknown.

- The linkage of the ideas is not present. For instance, the previous idea and the subsequent idea are not merged or coordinated.

Introduction


- The inappropriate use of hypothesis. Hypothesis is more suitable for experimental research, but not non-experimental research.

- It is more appropriate to either state the research questions/ research objectives.

Objectives


- Some information are absent in this section. Usually, the content should include: participants, research methods, instruments, procedures and analysis.

- Not all the details are included. For instance, for participants: number of participants, age, gender, location etc.

- Explain clearly for somebody who does not know your work.

- Qualitative methodology also needs to be explained in detail: details of the instruments and methods of analysis.

Methods


- Results do not answer research questions.

- Result section consists of information in methodology and discussion.

- Tables and results are not written in APA style.

- Data not presented in the usual way that type is presented in other studies.

- Too short – need more details.

- You cannot tell a thesis’ all findings in a single article.

- Raw findings do not automatically make an article.

Results


- The discussion section is too brief.

- The discussion does not seem to support and highlight the result.

- Do it based on the theories presented in your paper (change them if needed).

- Arguments need to be justified by the findings.

- Implications are not included or overstated.

Discussion


- Not written in APA style

- Outdated

References


1. Research papers – based on empirical findingsThe authors’ own contribution: Findings and their discussion/implications

2. Concept papers – based on theoretical considerationThe authors’ own contribution: Models/Theories/Frameworks

3. Review papers – based on the literatureThe authors’ own contribution: Summary/Synthesis/Discussion of the literature, Identification of research gaps, Recommendations for future research

Types of journal articles


Differences between journal article and Master’s and PhD thesis

Thesis Article

Introduction The problemIts backgroundResearch objectives and questionsSignificance, limitations and delimitationsWorking definitions

The topic and its context

Background and justification of the study

The scope of the paper

Literature review All important theories Only the theories and findings important for the article


Differences between journal article and Master’s and PhD thesis

Thesis Article

Methodology Research designPopulation and sampleResearch methods and instrumentsResearch procedureValidity and reliabilityMethods of the analysis

A very concise summary of the same elements

Description and justification of the methods used

Findings All results of the research. A limited set of results, which significantly contribute to the current discussion of the topic.


Initial Checklist

- Importance of research question

- Originality of work

- Strength and weaknesses described

- Provide suggestions for improvement

- Writing style, presentation (figure/table)

- Previous work is cited - correctly

- Ethical concerns


The Abstract

- Abstract summarise the manuscript?

- Abstract match the remainder of the manuscript?

- Can the Abstract be understood without reading the manuscript?

- A brief summary of topic, context, main objective, methods, findings, implications

- Include author data (if not blinded)


The Introduction

- Introduction concise?

- Purpose of the study clearly defined?

- Rationale for performing the study based on a review of literature?

- Appropriate length?

- Terms used in the manuscript defined?


The Methods

- Can the study be reproduced?

- Choice of design and statistical methods justified?

- Can the hypothesis to be tested?


The Results

- Results clearly explained?

- Order of presentation of the results parallel the order of presentation of the methods?

- Results reasonable and expected, or are they unexpected?

- Results are preceded by an appropriate discussion in the previous section?


The Discussion

- Research questions answered?

- Conclusions justified by the results found in the study?

- If there are unexpected results, do the authors adequately account for them?

- Limitations of the study noted?


Figures, Graphs, Tables

- Figures and graphs appropriate appropriately labeled?

- Figures and graphs adequately show the important results?

- Tables appropriately describe the results?


The References

- Reference list follow the format for the journal?

- Reference list contain errors?

- Important references that are not mentioned that should be noted?

- Are there more references than are necessary?


Finding the right journal

1. The quality of your paper: High-impact, lower-impact, Scopus or non-indexed journal?

2. The target audience: Local or international journal? Journal read by teachers, researchers or policy-makers?

3. Find potential journals:Your reference listList of journals indexed by Scopus: http://www.elsevier.com/online-tools/scopus/content-overviewImpact factor on the journal’s webpagePublication fee: paying journals are not necessarily of lower quality – consider the journal’s quality and your resources

http://www.elsevier.com/online-tools/scopus/content-overview


Finding the right journal

4. Increase your chances:Contents of the past few issues – find connections, cite articles, join the debateFollow the structure of their recently published articlesAuthors/topics from where?Editorial board members from where?


JOURNAL WEBSITE

The submission of your manuscript

Online submission system

Provide personal information

Upload your work (blinded text)

Cover letter

Email to the Editor

Cover letter (html or in attachment)

Your work (in attachment)


- The review process- Initial review > first phase > revision by author > second phase >

final revision > publication- Usually explained in the journal’s webpage

- Who is the editor?- The role of the editor

- Who is the reviewer?- The role of the reviewer

- Reading the reviewer’s comments: MS Word Review Mode

- Response letter to the reviewer: Table format

Dealing with the Reviewer


Reasons: Accept or Reject

Three reasons most cited for acceptance:

- Manuscript was timely, relevant and critical to a current problem

- Manuscript was well-written, logical and easy to comprehend

- Study was well-designed (appropriate, rigorous, comprehensive design)

- Thoughtful, focused, up-to-date review of literature


Reasons: Accept or Reject

Seven reasons most cited for rejection

- Incomplete and insufficiently described statistics

- Over-interpretation of the results

- Insufficiently described means of measuring data

- Sample too small or was biased

- Text difficult to follow (no logical flow)

- Insufficient problem statement

- Inadequate, incomplete, inaccurate, or outdated review of the literature

Benos, D.J., Kirk, K.L. & Hall, J.E. (2003). How to review a paper. Advances in Physiology Education, 27, 47-53.

new enterprise writers society (news) school of...

Documents