Academic Writing

## Crafting a research question

### The FINER criteria
- **F**easible: Can you actually do this research?
- **I**nteresting: Does it matter to the field?
- **N**ovel: Does it add new knowledge?
- **E**thical: Can it be done ethically?
- **R**elevant: Does it address a real problem?

### Question types
| Type | Purpose | Example |
|------|---------|---------|
| Descriptive | Document phenomena | "What are the characteristics of X?" |
| Comparative | Compare groups/conditions | "How does X differ between groups?" |
| Correlational | Examine relationships | "Is there a relationship between X and Y?" |
| Causal | Establish causation | "Does X cause Y?" |
| Exploratory | Generate hypotheses | "What factors might explain X?" |

### Refining your question
Start broad → Narrow progressively

Draft 1: "How does social media affect politics?"
Draft 2: "How does Twitter use affect political polarization?"
Draft 3: "How does exposure to partisan Twitter accounts affect
         political attitude polarization among US adults?"
Draft 4: "Does increased exposure to ideologically homogeneous Twitter
         feeds increase affective polarization among politically
         engaged US adults aged 18-35?"

## Systematic literature search

### Database selection by field
- **Multidisciplinary**: Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar
- **Social Sciences**: JSTOR, ProQuest, SSRN
- **Communication**: Communication Abstracts, ComAbstracts
- **Health**: PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL
- **Education**: ERIC
- **Business**: Business Source Complete

### Search strategy template
1. **Identify key concepts** from research question
2. **Generate synonyms** for each concept
3. **Combine with Boolean operators**

Example for: "social media political polarization"

Concept 1: social media
- OR: Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, "social networking sites",
      "online platforms", "digital media"

Concept 2: political
- OR: partisan, ideological, electoral, civic

Concept 3: polarization
- OR: division, extremism, "attitude change", radicalization

Combined search:
(Twitter OR Facebook OR "social media" OR "social networking")
AND (political OR partisan OR ideological)
AND (polarization OR division OR extremism)

### Inclusion/exclusion criteria
Document your criteria:
- Publication date range: [X to present]
- Languages: [English only / multiple]
- Publication types: [Peer-reviewed only / include preprints]
- Geographic scope: [Global / specific countries]
- Methodologies: [All / specific approaches]

### Managing your search
- Save searches to re-run later
- Export results to reference manager
- Track number of results at each stage
- Document date of each search

# Zotero/reference manager integration patterns

# For automated citation workflows
CITATION_STYLES = {
    'apa7': 'American Psychological Association 7th edition',
    'mla9': 'Modern Language Association 9th edition',
    'chicago': 'Chicago Manual of Style 17th edition',
    'harvard': 'Harvard Reference format',
    'ieee': 'IEEE',
    'vancouver': 'Vancouver (medicine)',
}

# BibTeX entry template
BIBTEX_ARTICLE = """
@article{{{citekey},
    author = {{{author}}},
    title = {{{title}}},
    journal = {{{journal}}},
    year = {{{year}}},
    volume = {{{volume}}},
    number = {{{number}}},
    pages = {{{pages}}},
    doi = {{{doi}}}
}}
"""

# Common citation patterns by context
CITATION_CONTEXTS = {
    'introducing_concept': "According to Author (Year), ...",
    'supporting_claim': "Research has shown that X (Author, Year; Author, Year).",
    'contrasting': "While Author (Year) argues X, Author (Year) contends Y.",
    'methodology_reference': "Following the method developed by Author (Year), ...",
    'direct_quote': 'Author (Year) states that "exact quote" (p. X).',
}

## Standard research paper sections

### Abstract (150-300 words typically)
- Background (1-2 sentences)
- Purpose/objective (1 sentence)
- Methods (2-3 sentences)
- Results (2-3 sentences)
- Conclusions (1-2 sentences)

### Introduction
**Funnel structure:**
1. Broad context - Why does this topic matter?
2. Narrow focus - What's the specific problem?
3. Gap identification - What don't we know?
4. Research question/hypothesis - What will you investigate?
5. Contribution preview - Why does this study matter?

### Literature Review
**Organize thematically, not chronologically:**
1. Theme 1: Key findings, debates, gaps
2. Theme 2: Key findings, debates, gaps
3. Theme 3: Key findings, debates, gaps
4. Synthesis: How themes connect to your study

### Methods
**The reproducibility test:** Could another researcher replicate your study from this section alone?

Include:
- Participants/sample (who, how selected, N)
- Materials/measures (what instruments, their validity)
- Procedure (step-by-step what happened)
- Analysis approach (statistical tests, qualitative methods)
- Ethical considerations (IRB, consent)

### Results
**Report, don't interpret:**
- Present findings systematically
- Use tables/figures for complex data
- Report effect sizes, not just p-values
- Address each research question/hypothesis

### Discussion
**Reverse funnel structure:**
1. Summary of key findings
2. Interpretation in context of literature
3. Theoretical implications
4. Practical implications
5. Limitations
6. Future research directions
7. Conclusion

## Writing conventions

### Voice and tense
| Section | Tense | Example |
|---------|-------|---------|
| Abstract | Past (methods/results), Present (conclusions) | "We found... This suggests..." |
| Introduction | Present (established knowledge) | "Research shows..." |
| Methods | Past | "Participants completed..." |
| Results | Past | "Analysis revealed..." |
| Discussion | Present + Past | "These findings indicate... We found..." |

### Hedging language
Appropriate hedging (avoiding overclaiming):
- "This suggests that..." (not "This proves that...")
- "may be related to" (not "causes")
- "Results indicate..." (not "Results demonstrate conclusively...")
- "One possible explanation..." (not "The explanation...")

### Transition words by function
**Addition:** furthermore, moreover, additionally, in addition
**Contrast:** however, nevertheless, conversely, in contrast
**Cause/effect:** therefore, consequently, as a result, thus
**Example:** for instance, specifically, to illustrate
**Sequence:** first, subsequently, finally, meanwhile
**Summary:** in summary, overall, in conclusion

### Paragraphs
Each paragraph should:
1. Begin with a topic sentence
2. Contain one main idea
3. Include supporting evidence
4. Connect to adjacent paragraphs
5. Average 100-200 words (varies by field)

## Issues to avoid

### Wordiness
❌ "It is important to note that the results demonstrate..."
✅ "Results demonstrate..."

❌ "In order to investigate..."
✅ "To investigate..."

❌ "A total of 50 participants..."
✅ "Fifty participants..."

### Weak verbs
❌ "The study was conducted by the researchers"
✅ "The researchers conducted the study"

❌ "There was a significant difference found"
✅ "We found a significant difference"

### Vague language
❌ "Several studies have shown..."
✅ "Three studies (Author, Year; Author, Year; Author, Year) showed..."

❌ "The results were significant"
✅ "The results were statistically significant (p < .05, d = 0.45)"

### Unnecessary jargon
- Define technical terms on first use
- Use simpler words when equally precise
- Consider your audience's expertise level

### Citation problems
❌ Citing secondary sources without noting
✅ "(Author, Year, as cited in Author, Year)"

❌ String citations without synthesis
✅ Group citations that make the same point; distinguish those that differ

## Response letter template

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

Thank you for the thoughtful feedback on our manuscript titled "[Title]"
(Manuscript ID: [Number]). We have carefully considered all comments and
revised the manuscript accordingly. Below, we provide point-by-point
responses to each comment.

---

## Reviewer 1

### Comment 1.1
[Quote or paraphrase the reviewer's comment]

**Response:**
[Your response explaining what you did]

**Changes made:**
[Quote the specific changes with page/line numbers]
"New text here..." (p. X, lines XX-XX)

### Comment 1.2
[Continue for each comment]

---

## Reviewer 2
[Same format]

---

We believe these revisions have substantially strengthened the manuscript
and hope you will find it suitable for publication in [Journal Name].

Sincerely,
[Authors]

## Types of reviewer feedback

### Must address
- Methodological concerns
- Missing literature
- Unclear writing
- Logical gaps in argument
- Statistical errors

### Negotiate carefully
- Requests for additional analyses
- Suggestions to restructure
- Disagreements on interpretation

### Pushback appropriately
- Requests outside scope
- Misunderstandings of your argument
- Contradictory advice from reviewers

### Response strategies
**Agreement:** "We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We have [action]."
**Partial agreement:** "We appreciate this point. While [acknowledge validity], we [explain your approach]. However, we have [partial accommodation]."
**Respectful disagreement:** "We thank the reviewer for raising this issue. We have considered this carefully; however, [explanation]. We hope the reviewer will find this reasoning persuasive."

## Standard grant components

### Specific aims (1 page)
**Opening paragraph:** What's the problem? Why does it matter?
**Gap statement:** What's missing from current understanding?
**Long-term goal:** Your research program vision
**Objective:** What this specific project will accomplish
**Central hypothesis:** Your testable prediction
**Aims:** 2-4 specific, achievable objectives
**Impact statement:** Why funding this matters

### Significance (2-3 pages)
- Importance of the problem
- Gaps in current knowledge
- How your work advances the field
- Potential impact if successful

### Innovation (1 page)
- What's new about your approach?
- Conceptual innovation
- Methodological innovation
- Technical innovation

### Approach (6-12 pages)
For each aim:
- Rationale
- Preliminary data (if any)
- Research design
- Methods
- Expected outcomes
- Potential problems and alternatives
- Timeline

### Broader impacts
- Training opportunities
- Dissemination plans
- Benefits to society
- Diversity and inclusion

## Budget categories

### Personnel
- PI salary and effort (% time)
- Co-investigators
- Postdocs (salary + benefits)
- Graduate students (stipend + tuition + benefits)
- Undergraduate researchers
- Technical staff

### Equipment
- Items over $5,000 (check sponsor threshold)
- Justify necessity for project

### Supplies
- Lab consumables
- Software licenses
- Participant payments

### Travel
- Conference presentations
- Data collection sites
- Collaborator visits

### Other direct costs
- Publication costs
- Participant incentives
- Transcription services
- Equipment maintenance

### Indirect costs (F&A, facilities and administrative)
- Each institution negotiates an F&A rate with its cognizant federal agency.
- The rate applies to **modified total direct costs (MTDC)**, not raw total
  direct costs, exclude equipment >$5K, tuition, participant support,
  subaward portions over $25K, and a few other categories per the
  institution's negotiated agreement.
- R1 universities commonly negotiate 55-70% of MTDC; smaller institutions
  often run lower. Always confirm the current rate with your sponsored
  programs office before budgeting.

## Evaluating journals

### Quality indicators
- Impact factor (use cautiously)
- Acceptance rate
- Review time
- Time to publication
- Reputation in your field
- Indexing (Web of Science, Scopus)

### Fit indicators
- Scope alignment
- Audience match
- Article type (empirical, theoretical, review)
- Open access route (see below)

### Open access routes
- **Gold OA**, published OA in a fully OA journal; usually requires an
  Article Processing Charge (APC), often $1,000-$3,000+.
- **Green OA**, closed-access journal but author self-archives an
  accepted manuscript in a repository (institutional, arXiv, etc.) under
  the publisher's allowed embargo.
- **Diamond / Platinum OA**, fully OA journal with no APC; supported
  by a sponsor (society, university, consortium). Increasingly common
  in social sciences and humanities.
- **Hybrid**, a closed-access journal that lets individual articles
  go OA for an APC. Note: hybrid is *excluded* from Plan S compliance
  and from many funder OA mandates, verify before paying an APC.
- **Bronze**, free to read but no formal OA license; the publisher
  can revoke access. Treat as not-actually-OA for compliance purposes.

### Funder mandates (US + Europe, as of 2026)
- **OSTP Nelson Memo (US)**, federally-funded research must be made
  immediately publicly accessible upon publication, with no embargo.
  Implementation deadline was **end of 2025**, so as of 2026 this is
  in effect for all major US federal funders (NIH, NSF, DOE, NASA, etc.).
- **Plan S (cOAlition S)**, European funders (Wellcome, UKRI, ANR,
  many others) require immediate Gold or Diamond OA, or Green OA
  with no embargo and a CC-BY license. Hybrid is not compliant.
- Verify the funder's most recent policy before submission, accepted
  routes shift, and some funders cap APCs.

### Red flags (predatory journals)
- Aggressive email solicitation
- Rapid "peer review" (days)
- Unclear editorial board
- Not indexed in major databases
- "Pay to publish" with no clear OA model
- Poor website quality

### Resources for vetting journals + ethics
- **Think. Check. Submit.** (thinkchecksubmit.org), checklist for legitimacy.
- **DOAJ** (Directory of Open Access Journals), vetted OA-journal index.
- **Journal Citation Reports**, paid Web of Science product for impact factor.
- **Cabells Predatory Reports**, subscription-based replacement for the
  original Beall's List, which was taken down in 2017 (only stale mirrors
  remain, don't rely on them as a current source of truth).
- **Retraction Watch Database**, searchable record of retractions and
  publisher misconduct; useful for vetting authors and journals.
- **COPE** (Committee on Publication Ethics, publicationethics.org),
  authoritative guidelines for editors and authors on ethics and integrity.
- **ICMJE** (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors,
  icmje.org/recommendations), defines authorship criteria, conflict-of-
  interest disclosure, and reporting standards used across many fields.

Dear Dr. [Editor's name],

We are pleased to submit our manuscript titled "[Full title]" for
consideration as a [article type] in [Journal Name].

**Summary (2-3 sentences):**
[What you did and what you found]

**Significance (2-3 sentences):**
[Why this matters for the journal's readership]

**Fit statement:**
[Why this journal specifically]

**Declarations:**
- This manuscript is original and not under consideration elsewhere
- All authors have approved the submission
- [Conflict of interest statement]
- [Funding acknowledgment]

**Suggested reviewers (if requested):**
1. [Name, affiliation, email] - Expert in [relevant area]
2. [Name, affiliation, email] - Expert in [relevant area]
3. [Name, affiliation, email] - Expert in [relevant area]

**Reviewers to exclude (if any):**
[Name] - [Brief, professional reason]

We look forward to your response.

Sincerely,
[Corresponding author name]
[Title, affiliation]
[Contact information]

## Before starting research

### Human subjects
- [ ] IRB/ethics board approval obtained
- [ ] Informed consent procedures established
- [ ] Vulnerable populations identified and protected
- [ ] Privacy and confidentiality measures in place
- [ ] Data security plan established
- [ ] Risk/benefit ratio acceptable

### Data management
- [ ] Data management plan created
- [ ] Secure storage arranged
- [ ] Sharing/archiving plans documented
- [ ] Retention period determined
- [ ] Destruction procedures established

### Authorship
- [ ] Contribution criteria discussed (use ICMJE definition: substantial
      contribution + drafting/revising + final approval + accountability)
- [ ] Author order agreed upon
- [ ] All contributors will meet authorship criteria
- [ ] Acknowledgments planned for non-author contributors
- [ ] **CRediT taxonomy** (credit.niso.org) roles assigned for each
      author, most major journals now require or recommend CRediT,
      which has 14 standardized contributor roles (Conceptualization,
      Methodology, Software, Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation,
      Resources, Data curation, Writing - original draft, Writing -
      review & editing, Visualization, Supervision, Project administration,
      Funding acquisition).

### Conflicts of interest
- [ ] Financial conflicts identified
- [ ] Non-financial conflicts identified
- [ ] Disclosure plan established

### Reproducibility
- [ ] Analysis plan pre-registered on **OSF** (osf.io) or **AsPredicted**
      (aspredicted.org) before data collection, distinguishes
      confirmatory from exploratory analyses and protects against
      HARKing. Check whether the target journal accepts **Registered
      Reports** (peer review of the design *before* data collection,
      with in-principle acceptance regardless of results), this format
      now exists at 350+ journals across psychology, biomedical, and
      social sciences as of 2026.
- [ ] Code will be shared (consider a GitHub release + Zenodo DOI for
      versioned, citable code archives)
- [ ] Data will be shared (FAIR principles; institutional repository,
      Dryad, Figshare, or domain-specific repository as appropriate)
- [ ] Materials will be shared

## Types of misconduct

### Fabrication
- Making up data or results
- Never acceptable under any circumstances

### Falsification
- Manipulating data, equipment, or processes
- Selectively omitting data to change conclusions
- Image manipulation beyond acceptable adjustment

### Plagiarism
- Using others' words without attribution
- Self-plagiarism (reusing own published work without acknowledgment)
- Paraphrasing too closely

### Other questionable practices
- P-hacking (running multiple analyses until significant)
- HARKing (hypothesizing after results known)
- Salami slicing (fragmenting one study into many papers)
- Gift/ghost authorship
- Selective reporting of results