Research Methodology

1. Research Methodology (HUT 2101C)
M.E ( Plastic Engineering)
2021-22
Prof ( Dr) V. R. Gaval
Professor in General Engineering
Institute Of Chemical Technology, Mumbai

2. Lecture 1 :Research
Definitions
Online oxford dictionaries
In the noun form
The systematic investigation into and study of materials and sources in order
to establish facts and reach new conclusions.
In the verb form
Investigate systematically
Wikipedia
Research can be defined as the search for knowledge ,or as any systematic
investigation , with an open mind , to establish novel facts ,usually using a
scientific method .

3. Methodology
• Definitions
Online Oxford Dictionaries
Noun : a system of methods used in a particular area of study or activity
Wikipedia (extracts)
Method can be defined as a systematic and orderly procedure or process for
attaining some objective
Methodology specifies several processes that need to be followed .These
processes constitute a generic framework.
Methodology may refer to the rationale and the philosophical assumptions
that underline a particular study relative to the scientific method.

4. What is Research?
• B.E/B.Tech course based programmes . Learn courses .Small
part of discovering something more of learning. a course based
degrees is where you know the exams, the assignments
everything is sort of catered and everything is well designed
• research based degrees you are trying to really discover
something, think and then postulate, validate, perform certain
experiments and so. So, there is lot of self-contribution in this
research based degrees.
• lot of it depends on the researcher himself or herself.

5. • Exam at the end .similar answers . Different thesis during
research.unique work you have done
• PhD is a qualitatively a very different degree where you are
training yourselves to become a researcher and it is one
different in also a sense of the ability of a PhD. Once you have
finished the degree you are also expected to be at a level that
you could guide another person to do a PhD,

6. • you know when you do an undergraduate degree the boundaries
are well defined. There is a start point and you can tell exactly
when you are half way through the degree and when you have
completed the degree. You can tell on the day you joined which is
your graduation day
• In a research based degree, it is open ended. So, there is a lot of
discovery in the process; you have to figure out when you have a
learnt enough and you are able to contribute enough and you have
become a master or somebody who is well known in that field who
has contributed a lot in to that field, and therefore you are in a
position to pick up a PhD degree. So,

7. What is research ?
• text book and a research paper,
• beginnings of research are quite hazy
• Big integral part of research is learning
• the term search in research so you have to search and discover.
• the searching is for both learning and for discovering

8. Course Objectives
• To familiarize students with the different aspects of research
• To provide an idea of good scientific writing and proper
presentation skills
• To provide an understanding of philosophical questions behind
scientific research
• To provide a brief background on the historical legacy of science
• Focus on research in mathematical and engineering sciences
• Portions may be relevant to other subjects
• Pointers to reading material will be mentioned during the course.

9. Division of the Course Structure
Based on the objectives course will be conducted in two parts
• General Discussion on various aspects of research
• History and Philosophy of science

10. Lecture 2
Motivation for research
Building a background

14. Motivation for Research

16. Building a Background
• Research background is a brief outline of the most important
studies that have been conducted so far presented in a
chronological order. Research background is written after the
literature review.
• Background information identifies and describes the history
and nature of a well-defined research problem with reference
to the existing literature. Background information does not
replace the literature review section of a research paper; it is
intended to place the research problem in a proper context.

17. • Background provides the context and to some extent history of
research on that particular paper topic. Introduction contains
information about the research, how it starts why it is
important etc. and the background will contain the critical data
related to the research question.
• Sufficient background information helps your reader
determine if you have a basic understanding of the research
problem being investigated and promotes confidence in the
overall quality of your analysis and findings

18. • Background to a study involves a critical evaluation of the context
for a study. This may range from situational analysis to
the historical evaluation of the gap where a study fits. Literature
review refers to a study of relevant ideas that you may use to
compare and contrast the concepts under investigation
• The background of your study will provide context to the
information discussed throughout the research paper. Background
information may include both important and relevant studies. This
is particularly important if a study either supports or refutes your
thesis.

19. • In addition, the background of the study will discuss your
problem statement, rationale, and research questions. It
links introduction to your research topic and ensures a logical
flow of ideas. Thus, it helps readers understand your reasons
for conducting the study.

20. Lecture 3:Role of a supervisor ,Time & Energy
Management
• you keep exploring and when you think you are getting lost or
when the advisor sees that you are getting lost, the advisor
changes the direction of your research slightly.
• The role of the advisor is to help you interpret the results, put the
results in the right perspective and so on.
• They expect the guides to actually give out day-to-day instructions
or weekly instructions.
• Research is all about trying to find out by yourself, but with the
support of an advisor who will make sure that you are not lost in
the unknown territories forever.

21. • Interest, spirit of learning student’s attitude makes a big difference.
• Inclination to learn and carry out research, sharing your results with the advisor makes a big
difference.
• Note taking, noting down things, making systematic consolidation of what you have done,
what you want to do, time management; there is lot of this that is actually very important
because again it is a long-term process, and a student must keep on reminding about
many of these things, and actually implementing some of these things, as the time goes
on.
• Advisor’s role in helping you interpret your results. So, basically, the advisor brings
experience; experience in that area, and in that relationship as an advisor and a student
relationship

23. Time and energy Management
• Although energy available to each one of us is different but the
time we all have with us is equal i.e. 24 hours in a day. If we want
to finish our work properly and on time we need to make best
possible use of our time and energy. In other words we must learn
to manage our time and energy properly.
• Time management relates to organization, planning and things that
are more tangible, while Energy management relates to more
intangible aspects: the feelings one may experience, the sleep
hours that one needs to be fresh or the productive hours within the
day.

27. Important steps
• Start by setting your boundaries. No one knows your energy
limits better than you.
• Include rest and recovery in your plans.
• Schedule time for deep and inner work.
• Keep a journal of your energy levels.
• Learn to delegate.

28. Key factors of time management
• Your Time Is Your Life. It is essential that you become aware at
every instance: How you spend your time is how you spend
your life.
• Poor Time Management is a Major Source of Stress.
• Importance Versus Urgency.
• Time Savers and Time Wasters.
• Work-Life Balance.

29. Benefits of time management
• It helps you achieve your goals faster.
• It Helps you prioritize your work.
• You get more done in less time.
• Reduces stress.
• Prevents procrastination.
• It boosts your confidence and offers Improved career
opportunities.
• Define and prioritize your tasks.
• Break down tasks into smaller tasks.

30. • Effective time management can make you more productive as
a researcher and minimize the factors that drain your time
such as procrastination and interruptions. Effectively managing
your time will help you experience: improved job satisfaction
& reduced stress.

31. Lecture 4 : Finding a problem & Solving a problem
• Choose an interesting general topic. Most professional
researchers focus on topics they are genuinely interested in
studying.
• Do some preliminary research on your general topic.
• Consider your audience.
• Start asking questions.
• Evaluate your question.
• Begin your research.

32. • The research problem is the heart of a study. It is a clear,
definite statement of the area of concern or investigation and
is backed by evidence (Bryman, 2007)
• It drives the research questions and processes and provides
the framework for understanding the research findings

33. Where to look for your research problem?
• two sources: real life and the scholarly arena
• ongoing obstacles and issues in the workplace can be the catalyst for
developing a research problem.
• Review recent literature, reports, or databases in your field. Major reports
and databases in the field may reveal findings or data-based facts that call
for additional investigation or suggest potential issues to be addressed
• Recommendations for the future studies provided at the end of journal
articles or doctoral dissertations suggest potential research problems
• Look at what theories need to be tested to develop a research problem.

34. • You can identify a research problem by reading recent
research, theory and debates on your topic to find a gap in
what is currently known about it. You might look for: A
phenomenon or context that has not been closely studied. A
contradiction between two or more perspectives.

35. • Start with a problem statement about the area you want to study,
and then create research questions and hypotheses to learn more.
• A simple question gets a simple answer. And a simple answer will
not be enough information for a thesis. How you ask the question
is important. Avoid questions that can be answered with "yes" or
"no" or a single word or phrase.
• A good research question should be focused on a single topic or on
several closely related ideas. If it isn't, you won't end up with a
good thesis. If a question is too general or doesn't stay on one
topic, you can fix it by deciding which part of the topic you want to
research.

36. • You can keep the same topic but change the question to be
something you have the ability to answer within the time period
and using the resources available to you.
• As you write your question, think about the answer you want to
receive. An opinion or value judgement isn't a good start for a
strong research paper or project. Instead, you want to create a
thesis based on data and objective evidence
• As you write your question, make it as specific as possible. This will
give you a more detailed answer - one that is strong enough to be
the topic of your project or paper.

37. • If you ask a question that's already been answered a thousand
times before, you're only doing research that someone else has
already done. This doesn't provide you with a good thesis. Instead,
ask a question with an original slant to it.
• If you're writing interview questions or planning to talk with a
source for a feature article, "why" questions are great because
of how open-ended they are. However, when you're writing a
research question, that open-endedness is the opposite of what
you need. You need a question that has a clear and specific answer.

38. • If you can answer a research question without doing much
research, it's a bad question. It's better to formulate your question
so that you need to dig a little to answer it. If you can answer with
a simple web search, you need a more complex question.
• It's easy to write a research paper or do a project about something
that isn't controversial, but you likely won't be creating anything
new. Instead, ask a research question about something that has
multiple sides. That way, the research you do and details you
include will have more impact.

39. • A good research question can be answered with primary sources or
secondary sources. It doesn't ask for an opinion or require a guess.
If you look for support for the answer, the research is out there.
• Whether you're writing an APA-style research paper, planning a
project for a class, or simply practicing creating research questions
and hypotheses, it's important to brush up on your academic
writing skills. Effective academic writing will help you answer your
research question in a way that is compelling to the reader or
audience, giving you the best grade possible.

40. Solving/evaluating a Problem
• Once you find your potential research problem, you will need to evaluate
the problem and ensure that it is appropriate for research. A research
problem is deemed appropriate when it is supported by the literature, and
considered significant, timely, novel, specific, and researchable. Stronger
research problems are more likely to succeed in publication, presentation,
and application.
• Your research problem should be relevant to the field and supported by a
number of recent peer-reviewed studies in the field. Even if you identify
the problem based on the recommendation of one journal article or
dissertation, you will still need to conduct a literature search and ensure
that other researchers support the problem and need for conducting
research to further address the problem.

41. • Your research problem should have a positive impact on the field. The
impact can be practical, in the form of direct application of the results in
the field, or conceptual, where the work advances the field by filling a
knowledge gap.
• Your research problem should be related to the current needs in the field
and well-suited for the present status of the issues in your field.
• Your research problem should be original and unique. It should seek to
address a gap in our knowledge or application.
• Your research problem should be specific enough to set the direction of
the study, raise research question(s), and determine an appropriate
research method and design. Vague research problems may not be useful
to specify the direction of the study or develop research questions

42. • Explore what topics are being covered in current journals in the field.
• Look at calls from relevant disciplinary organizations.
• Review your research center agenda and focused topics. For example, the
topics of the Research Labs at Center for Educational and Instructional
Technology Research including critical thinking, social media and cultural
competency, diversity, and Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics (STEM) in higher education are representative of the current
timely topics in the field of education.
• Identifying a current question in the field and supporting the problem with
the recent literature can justify the problem timeliness.

43. • An exhaustive review of literature can help you identify
whether the problem has already been addressed with your
particular sample and/or context.
• Talking to experts in the research area can illuminate a
problem.
• Replication of an existing study warrants discussion of value
elsewhere, but novelty can be found in determining if an
already-resolved problem holds in a new sample and/or
context.

44. • Research problems are solved through the scientific method.
This means research-ability, or feasibility of the problem, is
more important than all of the above characteristics. You as
the researcher should be able to solve the problem with your
abilities and available research methods, designs, research
sites, resources, and timeframe. If a research problem retains
all of aforementioned characteristics but it is not researchable,
it may not be an appropriate research problem.

45. Lecture 5 : Writing a Review paper
• Review article is one of the most important forms of scientific
writing.
• As the number of scientific publications are increasing day by
day, it is essential that timely review articles are written to
summarise the important details of the recent research works
and relate them to past research done on the similar topic.
• one of the easiest forms of writing and hence, can serve as the
start of research career for students.

46. • A systematic review is the process of searching, selecting, appraising,
synthesizing and reporting scientific evidence on a particular question or topic
• It uses a methodology of clearly-designed questions and methods to identify and
critically evaluate relevant research, followed by the collection and analysis of
data from the studies that are included in the review.
• Since the results of a single study apply only to a certain type of problem or a
particular method , a systematic review of many studies on the same subject can
provide information that is relevant to a broad range of problems.
• It is currently considered the best, least biased and most rational way to
organize, gather, evaluate and integrate scientific evidence from the rapidly-
changing scientific literature.

47. Importance of Research Reviews
• Providing a theoretical background for subsequent research
• Learning the breadth of research on a topic of interest
• Answering practical questions by understanding what existing
research has to say on the matter.
• To keep update with the latest research
• To avoid duplication of efforts and wasting resources on
research topics whose answers are already clear.

48. Basic Rules to be followed while writing a Review
Article
• Define the Purpose of the literature review
• Recognize the Target Audience
• Search and re- search for the literature
• Choose the type of review you wish to write (short /full)
• Be Critical and Consistent
• Writing the review
• Feedback

49. Structure of Systematic Review
• Title
• Abstract
• Introduction
• Body
• Conclusion
• Acknowledgements
• References

50. Key Points to Remember
• Make it an integrated compilation of literature, rather than
regurgitation of jumbled facts.
• Take notes, including full citations( author’s name, journal, date
and page number) from each paper as you read it.
• Organize your paper before settling down to write the article. This
will help in better compilation of data and ideas.
• Take feedback from a senior or a friend on the article, they may
spot some inaccuracies and inconsistencies that were not noticed
by the author
• Remember to always look into other related articles when writing
anarticle to get a broader view.

51. • A review article or review paper is based on other published articles. It
does not report original research. Review articles generally summarize the
existing literature on a topic in an attempt to explain the current state of
understanding on the topic.
• A good review paper not only summarises the current state of knowledge
in a particular area, it also synthesises the literature to provide new
insights and advance that field of re‐ search (Denney & Tewksbury, 2013;
Pautasso, 2013; Torraco, 2005; Van Wee & Banister, 2016; Webster &
Watson, 2002).
• A review paper, also known as a literature review, is a thorough, analytical
examination of previously published literature. It also provides an overview
of current research works on a particular topic in chronological order.

52. • The main objective of writing a review paper is to evaluate the existing
data or results, which can be done through analysis, modeling,
classification, comparison, and summary.
• Review papers can help to identify the research gaps, to explore potential
areas in a particular field.
• It helps to come out with new conclusions from already published works.
• Any scholar or researcher or scientist who wants to carryout research on a
specific theme, first read the review articles relevant to that research area
to understand the research gap for arriving at the problem statement.
• Review papers are widely read by many researchers and it helps to get
more citations for author. So, it is important to learn how to write a review
paper and find a journal to publish.

53. • The purpose of a review paper is to assess a particular research
question, theoretical or practical approach which provides readers
with in-depth knowledge and state-of-the-art understanding of the
research area.
• Writing a review article provides clarity, novelty, and contribution
to the area of research and it demands a great level of in-depth
understanding of the subject and a well-structured arrangement of
discussions and arguments.
• There are some journals that publish only review papers, and they
do not accept research articles. It is important to check the journal
submission guidelines.

54. Difference between research & review paper
Review paper Research paper
Perspective
Evaluates previously published
literatures on a specific topic
Discusses the present research
findings of an author
Content Existing research data New experimental findings
Length Longer than a research article.
Limit to journal it is to be
submitted.

56. • The purpose of the review paper can vary based on their specific type and
research needs
Provide a unified, collective overview of the current state of knowledge
on a specific research topic and provide an inclusive foundation on a research
theme.
Identify ambiguity, contradictions in existing results or data.
Highlight the existing methodological approaches, research techniques, and
unique perceptions.
Develop theoretical outlines to resolve and work on published research.
Discuss research gaps and future perspectives.

57. A good review paper needs to achieve three
important criteria. (Palmatier et al 2017).
• First, the area of research should be suitable for writing a
review paper so that the author finds sufficient published
literature.
• The review paper should be written with suitable literature,
detailed discussion, sufficient data/results to support the
interpretation, and persuasive language style.
• A completed review paper should provide substantial new
innovative ideas to the readers based on the comparison of
published works.

58. Systematic Procedure
• Topic selection :Select a suitable area in your research field and
formulate clear objectives, and prepare the specific research
hypotheses that are to be explored.
• Research design : Designing your research work is an important
step for any researcher. Based on the objectives, develop a clear
methodology or protocol to review a review paper.
• Data collection :Thorough analysis and understanding of different
published works help the author to identify suitable and relevant
data/results which will be used to write the paper.

59. • Data analysis :The degree of analysis to evaluate the collected data vary by extensive
review. The examination of treads, patterns, ideas, comparisons, and relationships among
the study provides deeper knowledge on that area of research.
• ReportInterpretation of results is very important for a good review paper. The author should
present the discussion in a systematic manner without any ambiguity.
The results can be presented in descriptive form, tables, and figures. The new insights
should have an in-depth discussion of the topic in line with fundamentals. Finally, the author
is expected to present the limitations of the existing study with future perspectives.
•

60. Lecture 7 : Process of writing research paper
• Select a research problem
• Survey the literature to progress in solving the selected problem
• Find the advantages and limitations of existing
mechanisms/methodologies in solving the problem
• Solve the problem in your own way (The solution you provide must be
better in terms of accuracy, computation time, utilization of computational
resources and utilization of latest methodologies)
• Compare the efficiency of proposed solution against the existing solutions
• Compile the introduction to your problem (motivation, urgency and need
behind solving the problem), survey, proposed solution, experimental
analysis, future directions as a document (research paper)

61. Writing a Research Paper
• The process of moving from idea to published manuscript can
be a challenging one.
• Series of steps to be followed
1) Determine the authors.
2) Start writing before the experiments are complete
3) Decide it is time to publish
4) Draft a title & abstract.
5) (Re)examine the list of authors.

62. 6) Determine the basic format: Full-length research
articles, Short (or brief) communications, Rapid communications
7) Select the journal : Language , Focus , Indexing, Availability,
Reputation , Format, Figures , Charges
8) Stock the sections of your paper
9) Construct the tables, figures, and legends
10) Outline the paper
11) Write the first draft

63. 12) Revise the manuscript : Make major alterations , Polish the
style, Format the document
13) Check the references.
14) Write the final title and abstract
15) Reread the journal's Instructions to Authors
16) Prepare the final illustrations
17) Get feedback on your manuscript and then revise your
manuscript again.

64. 18) Check Plagmarism : Ithenticate ,URKUND
19) Submit the manuscript to the editor
20) Deal with reviewers' comments
21) Check the proofs

65. Lecture 8 : Publishing
• Identify trusted journals for publishing research articles.
• Journal aim and scope
• Publication of similar work
• Journal rankings and measures of journal impact
• Demonstration of good publishing practices

66. • Find an international journal by going through the journal’s policies, aim and
scope. (Indexing is an important factor for describing the quality of a journal.
Scopus, SCI provides best indexing)
• Download the format of article (doc or LATEX)
• Convert your paper into the journal’s required format. (If you work more in this
phase you will get less format errors from reviewers. Some times, there are
chances of rejecting your paper if it is not properly formatted; even though the
content is good)
• Send it, and wait for review.
• Once the reviews come, modify the paper based on reviews/ comments if any;
and send the updated version in stipulated time. That’s it…. :-)
• But, however, the chances of accepting your article depends on different factors
such

67. Locating Journals
• Elsevier Journal Finder
• Journal/Author Name Estimator
• Springer Journal Suggester
• HelioBlast
• Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
• JANE
• Edanz Journal Selector

68. Journal Metrics
• InCites Journal Citation Reports
• SCImago Journal & Country Rank
• Scopus
• Web of Science
• Eigenfactor

69. General Information About Journals
• JHU Catalog (Catalyst) : Use the “Journal title” search in the catalog
to determine if the JHU Libraries subscribe to a particular journal.
• Journals in PubMed and Other NCBI Databases: Search the catalog
of the National Library of Medicine (NLM) for journals referenced
by NCBI databases, including PubMed. Each catalog record
indicates key journal details, including ISSN, abbreviations, and
whether its articles are currently indexed for MEDLINE.
• Ulrich's Periodical Directory: Search this comprehensive database
of serial publications for key details about journals, including
previous titles, publishers, ISSNs, URLs, indexing, and English
versions of foreign titles.

70. Search for Open Access Journals
• Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
Use the Browse Subjects feature, and select Journals to find quality
Open Access Journals. Note: Covers only Open Access Journals.
• Enago Open Access Journal Finder: Paste in content from your
publication to access a shortlist of quality Open Access Journals
that are relevant to you. This tool searches against DOAJ’s list of
journals.
• Publishing in an Open Access Journal allows you to share your work
widely and bypass permission and paywall barriers so the public
has greater access to your work.

71. Beware of Predatory journals/publishers
• A predatory journal is a publication that actively asks researchers
for manuscripts. No peer review system , No true editorial board.
You will find mediocre and even worthless papers in such journals
• Huge Publication charges
• Always check websites of such journals thoroughly
• Check journals contact information
• Research the editorial board
• Take a look at their peer review process and publication timelines:
Single blind /double blind
• Read through past issues of journal

72. Reviewing a Paper
• Editor will send reviewer a copy of the paper's abstract to help
reviewer decide whether he/she is going to do it or not.
• Try to respond to invitations promptly - it will prevent delays.
• At this stage it is better to declare any potential Conflict of
Interest.

73. Overview of the Review Report Format
• The structure of the review report varies between journals.
• Number your comments!!!" (Jonathon Halbesleben, Editor of Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology)
• Informal Structure
Many journals don't provide criteria for reviews beyond asking for your
'analysis of merits'. In this case, you may wish to familiarize yourself with
examples of other reviews done for the journal, which the editor should be
able to provide or, as you gain experience, rely on your own evolving style.

74. FormalStructure
Other journals require a more formal approach. Sometimes they will ask you to
address specific questions in your review via a questionnaire. Or they might want you
to rate the manuscript on various attributes using a scorecard. Often you can't see
these until you log in to submit your review. So when you agree to the work, it's worth
checking for any journal-specific guidelines and requirements. If there are formal
guidelines, let them direct the structure of your review.
In Both Cases
Whether specifically required by the reporting format or not, you should expect to
compile comments to authors and possibly confidential ones to editors only.

75. First time Reading
• Following the invitation to review, when you'll have received
the article abstract, you should already understand the aims,
key data and conclusions of the manuscript. If you don't, make
a note now that you need to feedback on how to improve
those sections.
•
The first read-through is a skim-read. It will help you form an
initial impression of the paper and get a sense of whether your
eventual recommendation will be to accept or reject the paper

76. Try to bear in mind the following questions
• What is the main question addressed by the research? Is it relevant and
interesting?
• How original is the topic? What does it add to the subject area compared
with other published material?
• Is the paper well written? Is the text clear and easy to read?
• Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments
presented? Do they address the main question posed?
• If the author is disagreeing significantly with the current academic
consensus, do they have a substantial case? If not, what would be required
to make their case credible?
• If the paper includes tables or figures, what do they add to the paper? Do
they aid understanding or are they superfluous?

77. Spotting Potential Major Flaws
• Editors say, "Specific recommendations for remedying flaws are VERY welcome.“
• Examples of possible major flaws include
• Drawing a conclusion that is contradicted by the author's own statistical or
qualitative evidence
• The use of a discredited method.
• Ignoring a process that is known to have a strong influence on the area under
study.
• If experimental design features prominently in the paper, first check that the
methodology is sound - if not, this is likely to be a major flaw.
•

78. Examine
• The sampling in analytical papers
• The sufficient use of control experiments
• The precision of process data
• The regularity of sampling in time-dependent studies
• The validity of questions, the use of a detailed methodology
and the data analysis being done systematically (in qualitative
research).

79. Major Flaws in Information
• If methodology is less of an issue, it's often a good idea to look at the data tables, figures or
images first. Especially in science research, it's all about the information gathered. If there
are critical flaws in this, it's very likely the manuscript will need to be rejected. Such issues
include:
•
Insufficient data
• Unclear data tables
• Contradictory data that either are not self-consistent or disagree with the conclusions
• Confirmatory data that adds little, if anything, to current understanding - unless strong
arguments for such repetition are made
•
If you find a major problem, note your reasoning and clear supporting evidence (including
citations).

80. Concluding the First Reading
• After the initial read and using your notes, including those of any major
flaws you found, draft the first two paragraphs of your review - the first
summarizing the research question addressed and the second
the contribution of the work. If the journal has a prescribed reporting
format, this draft will still help you compose your thoughts.
• The First Paragraph
state the main question addressed by the research and summarize the goals,
approaches, and conclusions of the paper. Show the author what key
messages are conveyed to the reader. Focus on successful aspects of paper so
the author will come to know where they have done well.

81. • The Second Paragraph
Provides a conceptual overview of the contribution of the research.
Is the paper's premise interesting and important?
Are the methods used appropriate?
Do the data support the conclusions?
After drafting these two paragraphs, you should be in a position to
decide whether this manuscript is seriously flawed and should be
rejected (see the next section). Or whether it is publishable in
principle and merits a detailed, careful read through.

82. Rejection After the First Reading
• Even if you are coming to the opinion that an article has serious
flaws, make sure you read the whole paper. This is very important
because you may find some really positive aspects that can be
communicated to the author. This could help them with future
submissions.
• A full read-through will also make sure that any initial concerns are
indeed correct and fair. After all, you need the context of the whole
paper before deciding to reject. If you still intend to recommend
rejection, see the section "When recommending rejection."

83. Before Starting the Second Read
• Once the paper has passed your first read and you've decided the article is
publishable in principle, one purpose of the second, detailed read-through is to
help prepare the manuscript for publication. Of course, you may still decide to
reject it following a second reading.
• The benchmark for acceptance is whether the manuscript makes a useful
contribution to the knowledge base or understanding of the subject matter. It
need not be fully complete research - it may be an interim paper. After all
research is an incomplete, on-going project by its nature. The detailed read-
through should take no more than an hour for the moderately experienced
reviewer.
• Offer clear suggestions for how the authors can address the concerns raised. In
other words, if you're going to raise a problem, provide a solution." (Jonathon
Halbesleben, Editor of Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology).

84. Preparation for second read
• To save time and simplify the review:
Don't rely solely upon inserting comments on the manuscript document -
make separate notes
• Try to group similar concerns or praise together
• If using a review program to note directly onto the manuscript, still try
grouping the concerns and praise in separate notes - it helps later
• Note line numbers of text upon which your notes are based - this helps you
find items again and also aids those reading your review
• Keep images, graphs and data tables in clear view - either print them off or
have them in view on a second computer monitor or window

85. Doing the Second Read
As you're reading through the manuscript for a second time, you'll need to keep in mind the argument's
construction, the clarity of the language and content.
•
With regard to the argument’s construction, you should identify:
•
Any places where the meaning is unclear or ambiguous
• Any factual errors
• Any invalid arguments
•
You may also wish to consider:
•
Does the title properly reflect the subject of the paper?
• Does the abstract provide an accessible summary of the paper?
• Do the keywords accurately reflect the content?
• Is the paper an appropriate length?
• Are the key messages short, accurate and clear?

86. Check the Language
• Not every submission is well written. Part of your role is to make sure that the text’s meaning is clear.
•
Editors say, "If a manuscript has many English language and editing issues, please do not try and fix it.
If it is too bad, note that in your review and it should be up to the authors to have the manuscript
edited."
•
If the article is difficult to understand, you should have rejected it already. However, if the language is
poor but you understand the core message, see if you can suggest improvements to fix the problem:
•
Are there certain aspects that could be communicated better, such as parts of the discussion?
• Should the authors consider resubmitting to the same journal after language improvements?
• Would you consider looking at the paper again once these issues are dealt with?

87. • On Grammar and Punctuation
Your primary role is judging the research content. Don't spend time polishing
grammar or spelling. Editors will make sure that the text is at a high standard
before publication. However, if you spot grammatical errors that affect clarity
of meaning, then it's important to highlight these. Expect to suggest such
amendments - it's rare for a manuscript to pass review with no corrections.
A 2010 study of nursing journals found that 79% of recommendations by
reviewers were influenced by grammar and writing style (Shattel, et al.,
2010).

88. The Second Read-Through
• The Introduction
• A well-written introduction, Sets out the argument, Summarizes recent research
related to the topic, Highlights gaps in current understanding or conflicts in
current knowledge, Establishes the originality of the research aims by
demonstrating the need for investigations in the topic area, Gives a clear idea of
the target readership, why the research was carried out and the novelty and
topicality of the manuscript.
• Originality and Topicality: Editors say, "Is the report providing new information;
is it novel or just confirmatory of well-known outcomes?“
Aims
It's common for the introduction to end by stating the research aims. By this point
you should already have a good impression of them - if the explicit aims come as a
surprise, then the introduction needs improvement

89. • Materials and Methods
• Academic research should be replicable, repeatable and robust - and follow best practice.
Replicable Research
•
This makes sufficient use of:
•
Control experiments
• Repeated analyses
• Repeated experiments
• Sampling
•
These are used to make sure observed trends are not due to chance and that the same experiment
could be repeated by other researchers - and result in the same outcome. Statistical analyses will not
be sound if methods are not replicable. Where research is not replicable, the paper should be
recommended for rejection.

90. • Repeatable Methods
•
These give enough detail so that other researchers are able to carry out the same research. For example, equipment used or sampling
methods should all be described in detail so that others could follow the same steps. Where methods are not detailed enough, it's
usual to ask for the methods section to be revised.
•
Robust Research
•
This has enough data points to make sure the data are reliable. If there are insufficient data, it might be appropriate to recommend
revision. You should also consider whether there is any in-built bias not nullified by the control experiments.
•
Best Practice
•
During these checks you should keep in mind best practice:
•
Standard guidelines were followed (e.g. the CONSORT Statement for reporting randomized trials)
• The health and safety of all participants in the study was not compromised
• Ethical standards were maintained
•
If the research fails to reach relevant best practice standards, it's usual to recommend rejection. What's more, you don't then need to
read any further.

91. • Results and Discussion
•
This section should tell a coherent story - What happened? What was discovered or confirmed?
•
Certain patterns of good reporting need to be followed by the author:
•
They should start by describing in simple terms what the data show
• They should make reference to statistical analyses, such as significance or goodness of fit
• Once described, they should evaluate the trends observed and explain the significance of the results to wider
understanding. This can only be done by referencing published research
• The outcome should be a critical analysis of the data collected
•
Discussion should always, at some point, gather all the information together into a single whole. Authors should
describe and discuss the overall story formed. If there are gaps or inconsistencies in the story, they should
address these and suggest ways future research might confirm the findings or take the research forward.
•

92. • . Conclusions
•
This section is usually no more than a few paragraphs and may be presented as part of the results and discussion, or in a separate
section. The conclusions should reflect upon the aims - whether they were achieved or not - and, just like the aims, should not be
surprising. If the conclusions are not evidence-based, it's appropriate to ask for them to be re-written.
•
5. Information Gathered: Images, Graphs and Data Tables
•
If you find yourself looking at a piece of information from which you cannot discern a story, then you should ask for improvements in
presentation. This could be an issue with titles, labels, statistical notation or image quality.
•
Where information is clear, you should check that:
•
The results seem plausible, in case there is an error in data gathering
• The trends you can see support the paper's discussion and conclusions
• There are sufficient data. For example, in studies carried out over time are there sufficient data points to support the trends described
by the author?
•
You should also check whether images have been edited or manipulated to emphasize the story they tell. This may be appropriate but
only if authors report on how the image has been edited (e.g. by highlighting certain parts of an image). Where you feel that an image
has been edited or manipulated without explanation, you should highlight this in a confidential comment to the editor in your report.

93. • List of References
•
You will need to check referencing for accuracy, adequacy and balance.
•
Accuracy
•
Where a cited article is central to the author's argument, you should check the accuracy and format of the reference - and bear in mind
different subject areas may use citations differently. Otherwise, it's the editor’s role to exhaustively check the reference section for
accuracy and format.
•
Adequacy
•
You should consider if the referencing is adequate:
•
Are important parts of the argument poorly supported?
• Are there published studies that show similar or dissimilar trends that should be discussed?
• If a manuscript only uses half the citations typical in its field, this may be an indicator that referencing should be improved - but don't
be guided solely by quantity
• References should be relevant, recent and readily retrievable
•