• HUMANITY

    Working for HumanityHumanity is the spiritual part of Creation. -Unknown Read More
  • COMMUNAL

    Bringing Researchers and Inventors, closerCommunal well-being is central to human life.-Cat Stevens Read More
  • ART

    True art is characterized by an irresistible urge in the creative artist.-Albert Einstein/span> Read More
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

Informal Guidelines of Research Paper Writing

line

Key points to remember:

  • Submit all work in its final form.
  • Write your paper in the form which is presented in the guidelines using the template.
  • Please note the criteria peer reviewers will use for grading the final paper.


Final points:

One purpose of organizing a research paper is to let people interpret your efforts selectively. The journal requires the following sections, submitted in the order listed, with each section starting on a new page:

The introduction: This will be compiled from reference matter and reflect the design processes or outline of basis that directed you to make a study. As you carry out the process of study, the method and process section will be constructed like that. The results segment will show related statistics in nearly sequential order and direct reviewers to similar intellectual paths throughout the data that you gathered to carry out your study.

The discussion section:

This will provide understanding of the data and projections as to the implications of the results. The use of good quality references throughout the paper will give the effort trustworthiness by representing an alertness to prior workings.

Writing a research paper is not an easy job, no matter how trouble-free the actual research or concept. Practice, excellent preparation, and controlled record-keeping are the only means to make straightforward progression.

General style:

Specific editorial column necessities for compliance of a manuscript will always take over from directions in these general guidelines.

To make a paper clear: Adhere to recommended page limits.

Mistakes to avoid:

  • Insertion of a title at the foot of a page with subsequent text on the next page.
  • Separating a table, chart, or figure—confine each to a single page.
  • Submitting a manuscript with pages out of sequence.
  • In every section of your document, use standard writing style, including articles ("a" and "the").
  • Keep paying attention to the topic of the paper.
  • Use paragraphs to split each significant point (excluding the abstract).
  • Align the primary line of each section.
  • Present your points in sound order.
  • Use present tense to report well-accepted matters.
  • Use past tense to describe specific results.
  • Do not use familiar wording; don't address the reviewer directly. Don't use slang or superlatives.
  • Avoid use of extra pictures—include only those figures essential to presenting results.

Title page:

Choose a revealing title. It should be short and include the name(s) and address(es) of all authors. It should not have acronyms or abbreviations or exceed two printed lines.

Abstract:This summary should be two hundred words or less. It should clearly and briefly explain the key findings reported in the manuscript and must have precise statistics. It should not have acronyms or abbreviations. It should be logical in itself. Do not cite references at this point.

An abstract is a brief, distinct paragraph summary of finished work or work in development. In a minute or less, a reviewer can be taught the foundation behind the study, common approaches to the problem, relevant results, and significant conclusions or new questions.

Write your summary when your paper is completed because how can you write the summary of anything which is not yet written? Wealth of terminology is very essential in abstract. Use comprehensive sentences, and do not sacrifice readability for brevity; you can maintain it succinctly by phrasing sentences so that they provide more than a lone rationale. The author can at this moment go straight to shortening the outcome. Sum up the study with the subsequent elements in any summary. Try to limit the initial two items to no more than one line each.

Reason for writing the article—theory, overall issue, purpose.

  • Fundamental goal.
  • To-the-point depiction of the research.
  • Consequences, including definite statistics—if the consequences are quantitative in nature, account for this; results of any numerical analysis should be reported. Significant conclusions or questions that emerge from the research.
  • Approach:

    • Single section and succinct.
    • An outline of the job done is always written in past tense.
    • Concentrate on shortening results—limit background information to a verdict or two.
    • Exact spelling, clarity of sentences and phrases, and appropriate reporting of quantities (proper units, important statistics) are just as significant in an abstract as they are anywhere else.

    Introduction:

    The introduction should "introduce" the manuscript. The reviewer should be presented with sufficient background information to be capable of comprehending and calculating the purpose of your study without having to refer to other works. The basis for the study should be offered. Give the most important references, but avoid making a comprehensive appraisal of the topic. Describe the problem visibly. If the problem is not acknowledged in a logical, reasonable way, the reviewer will give no attention to your results. Speak in common terms about techniques used to explain the problem, if needed, but do not present any particulars about the protocols here.

    The following approach can create a valuable beginning:

    • Explain the value (significance) of the study.
    • Defend the model—why did you employ this particular system or method? What is its compensation? Remark upon its appropriateness from an abstract point of view as well as pointing out sensible reasons for using it.
    • Present a justification. State your particular theory(-ies) or aim(s), and describe the logic that led you to choose them.
    • Briefly explain the study's tentative purpose and how it meets the declared objectives.

    Approach:

    Use past tense except for when referring to recognized facts. After all, the manuscript will be submitted after the entire job is done. Sort out your thoughts; manufacture one key point for every section. If you make the four points listed above, you will need at least four paragraphs. Present surrounding information only when it is necessary to support a situation. The reviewer does not desire to read everything you know about a topic. Shape the theory specifically—do not take a broad view.
    As always, give awareness to spelling, simplicity, and correctness of sentences and phrases.

    Procedures (methods and materials):

    This part is supposed to be the easiest to carve if you have good skills. A soundly written procedures segment allows a capable scientist to replicate your results. Present precise information about your supplies. The suppliers and clarity of reagents can be helpful bits of information. Present methods in sequential order, but linked methodologies can be grouped as a segment. Be concise when relating the protocols. Attempt to give the least amount of information that would permit another capable scientist to replicate your outcome, but be cautious that vital information is integrated. The use of subheadings is suggested and ought to be synchronized with the results section.

    When a technique is used that has been well-described in another section, mention the specific item describing the way, but draw the basic principle while stating the situation. The purpose is to show all particular resources and broad procedures so that another person may use some or all of the methods in one more study or referee the scientific value of your work. It is not to be a step-by-step report of the whole thing you did, nor is a methods section a set of orders.

    Materials:

    Materials may be reported in part of a section or else they may be recognized along with your measures.

    Methods:

    • Report the method and not the particulars of each process that engaged the same methodology.
    • Describe the method entirely.
    • To be succinct, present methods under headings dedicated to specific dealings or groups of measures.
    • Simplify—detail how procedures were completed, not how they were performed on a particular day.
    • If well-known procedures were used, account for the procedure by name, possibly with a reference, and that's all.

    Approach:

    It is embarrassing to use vigorous voice when documenting methods without using first person, which would focus the reviewer's interest on the researcher rather than the job. As a result, when writing up the methods, most authors use third person passive voice.
    Use standard style in this and every other part of the paper—avoid familiar lists, and use full sentences.

    What to keep away from:

    • Resources and methods are not a set of information.
    • Skip all descriptive information and surroundings—save it for the argument.
    • Leave out information that is immaterial to a third party.

    Results:

    The principle of a results segment is to present and demonstrate your conclusion. Create this part as entirely objective details of the outcome, and save all understanding for the discussion.

    The page length of this segment is set by the sum and types of data to be reported. Use statistics and tables, if suitable, to present consequences most efficiently.

    You must clearly differentiate material which would usually be incorporated in a study editorial from any unprocessed data or additional appendix matter that would not be available. In fact, such matters should not be submitted at all except if requested by the instructor.

    Content:

    • Sum up your conclusions in text and demonstrate them, if suitable, with figures and tables.
    • In the manuscript, explain each of your consequences, and point the reader to remarks that are most appropriate.
    • Present a background, such as by describing the question that was addressed by creation of an exacting study.
    • Explain results of control experiments and give remarks that are not accessible in a prescribed figure or table, if appropriate.
    • Examine your data, then prepare the analyzed (transformed) data in the form of a figure (graph), table, or manuscript.

    What to stay away from:

    • Do not discuss or infer your outcome, report surrounding information, or try to explain anything.
    • Do not include raw data or intermediate calculations in a research manuscript.
    • Do not present similar data more than once.
    • A manuscript should complement any figures or tables, not duplicate information.
    • Never confuse figures with tables—there is a difference.

    Approach:

      As always, use past tense when you submit your results, and put the whole thing in a reasonable order.

      Put figures and tables, appropriately numbered, in order at the end of the report.

      If you desire, you may place your figures and tables properly within the text of your results section.

    Figures and tables:

    If you put figures and tables at the end of some details, make certain that they are visibly distinguished from any attached appendix materials, such as raw facts. Whatever the position, each table must be titled, numbered one after the other, and include a heading. All figures and tables must be divided from the text.

    Discussion:

    The discussion is expected to be the trickiest segment to write. A lot of papers submitted to the journal are discarded based on problems with the discussion. There is no rule for how long an argument should be.

    Position your understanding of the outcome visibly to lead the reviewer through your conclusions, and then finish the paper with a summing up of the implications of the study. The purpose here is to offer an understanding of your results and support all of your conclusions, using facts from your research and generally accepted information, if suitable. The implication of results should be fully described.

    Infer your data in the conversation in suitable depth. This means that when you clarify an observable fact, you must explain mechanisms that may account for the observation. If your results vary from your prospect, make clear why that may have happened. If your results agree, then explain the theory that the proof supported. It is never suitable to just state that the data approved the prospect, and let it drop at that. Make a decision as to whether each premise is supported or discarded or if you cannot make a conclusion with assurance. Do not just dismiss a study or part of a study as "uncertain."

    Research papers are not acknowledged if the work is imperfect. Draw what conclusions you can based upon the results that you have, and take care of the study as a finished work.

    • You may propose future guidelines, such as how an experiment might be personalized to accomplish a new idea.
    • Give details of all of your remarks as much as possible, focusing on mechanisms.
    • Make a decision as to whether the tentative design sufficiently addressed the theory and whether or not it was correctly restricted. Try to present substitute explanations if they are sensible alternatives.
    • One piece of research will not counter an overall question, so maintain the large picture in mind. Where do you go next? The best studies unlock new avenues of study. What questions remain?
    • Recommendations for detailed papers will offer supplementary suggestions.

    Approach:

    When you refer to information, differentiate data generated by your own studies from other available information. Present work done by specific persons (including you) in past tense.
    Describe generally acknowledged facts and main beliefs in present tense.