Academic Article Writing Dr. Edward Robeck Visiting Faculty Member, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM)

Goals for the Morning Discuss elements of an academic manuscript Discuss elements of an academic manuscript Sketch the typical manuscript review process Sketch the typical manuscript review process Provide some general “Do” and “Don’t” tips Provide some general “Do” and “Don’t” tips Practice some simple writing skill activities Practice some simple writing skill activities Produce an initial outline for writing a manuscript Produce an initial outline for writing a manuscript Please excuse me if I’m too basic, or not basic enough Please excuse me if I jump around a bit Please ask questions

Why Write?

Academic writing serves many purposes. In general, it is intended to contribute to a professional community by providing new knowledge, applications and/or perspectives that alter in positive ways how professionals understand their practice and its relationship to others.

Why Write?

Seven Steps To Becoming a Good Writer 1. Write 2. Write Some More 3. Write A Lot More 4. Read 5. Edit Other People’s Drafts 6. Seek Input (Editing Groups) 7. Re-write

Gowin’s Vee

Minimum Elements Key concept Key concept Population Population Sub-set of population Sub-set of population Manipulated variable Manipulated variable Responding variable Responding variable Method Method Major findings Major findings Significance Significance

The Concept of a Knowledge Claim What can you say now that you could not say before? What can you say now that you could not say before? On what basis can you justify the claim? On what basis can you justify the claim? Evidence Evidence Reasoned Argument Reasoned Argument Opinions/Values Opinions/Values Combinations Combinations

How could you justify… 1. “Face-to-face teaching is more effective than online instruction.” 2. “This instructional unit includes methods that have all been shown be effective, but contradict each other in practice.” 3. “Too much educational research is based on opinion rather than on evidence.”

The Concept of Contribution What is the contribution? Empirical knowledge claim Empirical knowledge claim Test of an interaction Test of an interaction Theoretical foundation Theoretical foundation Philosophical extension Philosophical extension Establishing a new construct Establishing a new construct Methodological development Methodological development

Editorial Process (from Educational Researcher) Acknowledged by the editor upon receipt. Acknowledged by the editor upon receipt. Initially reviewed by the Co-Editors. Initially reviewed by the Co-Editors. Meet the scope of journal? Meet the scope of journal? Routed to the Associate Editors—AEs. Routed to the Associate Editors—AEs. AEs match the manuscript with three professionals for review. AEs match the manuscript with three professionals for review. Identify reviewers with expertise in the subject of the article Identify reviewers with expertise in the subject of the article Reviewers among but not limited to the ER Editorial Board and ER manuscript reviewers. Reviewers among but not limited to the ER Editorial Board and ER manuscript reviewers. The review process may require 3 to 6 months, depending on the topic and scope of the work. The review process may require 3 to 6 months, depending on the topic and scope of the work. Upon completion of the reviews, the Associate Editor will read the manuscript, consider the recommendations made by the reviewers and submit a summary to the Co-Editors. Upon completion of the reviews, the Associate Editor will read the manuscript, consider the recommendations made by the reviewers and submit a summary to the Co-Editors. Co-Editors review all related commentary and then relay their decision in a formal letter to the author(s). Co-Editors review all related commentary and then relay their decision in a formal letter to the author(s).

Common Manuscript Elements Title: Abstract: Introduction/Background (Either name can be used): Methods and Procedure (sometimes called Methodology, with Procedure as a subhead) Results (Sometimes called Findings) Discussion (sometimes called Conclusions and Discussion or Conclusions and Implications) Appendices Acknowledgements References

What type of article? Reflection, Empirical, Narrative, Editorial, Theoretical, Other 1.Investigating Early Career Urban Teachers' Perspectives on and Experiences in Professional Development 2.A Conversation of Many Voices: Critiques and Visions of Teacher Education 3.Teacher Education and the Outcomes Trap 4.The Integration of Social Justice in Teacher Education: Dimensions of Prospective Teachers’ Opportunities to Learn 5.Preparing Community-Oriented Teachers: Reflections from a Multicultural Service-Learning Project

Some practice activities 1.Write a title for this article. 2.Check this against the Abstract guidelines in the Template handout 3.Here is an example of a properly formatted APA reference—create one for this information 4.What can you say about each of the following based on the abstract? 5.Look at each abstract. What “knowledge claims” does each make? 6.What “contribution” does each study make?

Why Manuscripts Fail From:FFECTIVE MEDICAL WRITING Michelle Biros, MS, MD 1. Technical reasons The article is not within the journal scope The article is not within the journal scope The authors did not follow the instructions The authors did not follow the instructions Unclear purpose, poor syntax, extremely verbose, flight of ideas Unclear purpose, poor syntax, extremely verbose, flight of ideas Ethical concerns about the study or even the study question Ethical concerns about the study or even the study question Lowest denominator paper, with a backlog of higher priority works Lowest denominator paper, with a backlog of higher priority works Author unwilling to revise the manuscript to address reviewer’s concerns Author unwilling to revise the manuscript to address reviewer’s concerns

Why Manuscripts Fail From:FFECTIVE MEDICAL WRITING Michelle Biros, MS, MD 2. Cognitive reasons The concept is not unique The concept is not unique The question is trivial The question is trivial There are obvious serious flaws in the study itself There are obvious serious flaws in the study itself The methods are inadequate The methods are inadequate The results are not significant The results are not significant The conclusions are overstated or can’t be supported The conclusions are overstated or can’t be supported The conclusions simply restate the results and/or do not answer the study question The conclusions simply restate the results and/or do not answer the study question

Develop an Outline 1. Key concept 2. Population 3. Sub-set of population 4. Variables 5. Methods 6. Data/information used 7. Major findings (Knowledge Claims) 8. Significance (Contributions)