Developing a Publishable Research Manuscript

Developing a Publishable Research Manuscript

First, consider your "audiences" -- there are three: 1) Editors; 2) Reviewers, and 3) Readers. Although this information focuses on the reviewer, you need to convince each of these audiences of the importance of your work, the quality of your research, and the clarity of your presentation of the results.

Each section of an article — Abstract, Introduction, Method, Results, Discussion, References — is scrutinized by reviewers for accuracy, clarity, and contribution to the literature. This tutorial introduces key concepts in a manuscript section by section from the reviewer's viewpoint.

Abstract

The Abstract is the reviewer's first encounter with the manuscript. The abstract is a short, concise summary of the research goal/question, the method used in the study, the resultant findings, and a main conclusion. This brief summary should be limited to the length set forth in the journal's guidelines for authors.

Introduction

A coherent Introduction — its readability, theoretical grounding, review of literature, purpose and hypotheses, can maximize the probability that manuscripts will receive favorable reviews. Conversely, a poorly organized and poorly written Introduction increases the possibility of rejection, even when a study is well designed and data are analyzed appropriately. The following are some typical shortfalls of a poorly written Introduction.

A conceptual or theoretical rationale is not provided.
Certain variables are included in the Design section, but not in the Introduction.
The research question is not relevant. more>>

Method

A good Method section contains a representative sample, sound design, adequate measures, systematic procedures, and logical statistical analyses. The methodology should answer the questions Who, What, Why, How, and also include Because. The following detail illuminates what information should be provided in the Method Section in order to score points with the readers and the reviewers. more>>

Results

A well written Results section is easily readable, avoiding long lists of numbers while visually displaying the results. Subheadings, appropriate use of statistics to address the hypotheses, reporting all relevant information and interpretation of findings are all key components in this section. more>>

Discussion

Essential elements of the Discussion include:

a brief iteration of the purpose of the study,
a summary of the results in relation to the research questions and hypotheses,
discussion of the obtained findings relative to pertinent studies mentioned in the Introduction,
theoretical implications of the study findings,
practical implications (if appropriate),
future directions along this line of research, and
a concluding paragraph to bring closure to the research.

TIP:

Limit the discussion to the conclusions and implications that your data support.
(Do not exceed the scope of the data.)
Do not introduce results (new data) in the discussion.

References

Work cited from other sources should be appropriately mentioned in the body of the text, with full references of those citations included in the Reference List. All works cited in the text should be listed in the References, and vice versa. To avoid a manuscript being rejected out of hand, the references should be complete and should follow the style (e.g., APA, MLA, Chicago, GPO) specified in the journal's author guidelines. Note that some journals set a limit on the number of references permitted per manuscript.

TIP:

To ensure accuracy of the reference list, verify each reference against the original source.

Application Activity

Select a research manuscript in your interest area, and go through the accompanying checklist. If using your own draft manuscript, (a) use this checklist and make revisions before submitting for review, or (b) ask a colleague to use the checklist and provide you feedback before making revisions and submitting for review or (c) both of you use the checklist and then compare and discuss.

Acknowledgement

This tutorial is adapted from the following editorial series written by Dr. Maureen R. Weiss, published when she served as Editor-in-Chief for Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport.

Weiss, M. R., (1994). Editor's viewpoint: Why ask "Why?" Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 65(1).
Weiss, M. R., (1994). Editor's viewpoint: Who's on First, What's on Second? Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 65(2).
Weiss, M. R., (1995). Editor's viewpoint: Do you know the way to San José? Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 66(1).

Special thanks are also extended to the following Research Consortium Fellows who reviewed drafts and contributed content:

Mark G, Fischman, Auburn University
James R. Morrow, Jr., University of North Texas
Melinda A. Solmon, Louisiana State University