Dear all, Performing research and writing articles is often the bedrock of what we do in academia, for better or worse, yet learning how to research and write is a never ending process. We can all get better at it, myself included. Moreover, it can be incredibly difficult trying to determine the difference between a "good" and a "bad" article, all the more so when we all come from diverse backgrounds and write for different disciplines and audiences.
With these complexities in mind, Professor Steve Sorrell<http://www.sussex.ac.uk/profiles/2497> and Associate Professor Jonn Axsen<https://www.sfu.ca/rem/people/profiles/axsen.html> and I<http://www.sussex.ac.uk/profiles/373957> have tried to create readable but robust review for students and professional researchers about how to (1) design and conduct research as well as (2) analyse results, structure evidence and arguments, and write. We cover a lot of ground, from how to pose research questions to different ways of conceptualizing novelty and then tips for rigor and even "style," or the art of writing well. It's written from the perspective of our own field, that of energy social science, but we hope that many of the tips and codes of practice expand well beyond that field. I thought this table works well as a high level summary of many of our arguments: Key structural ingredients of good and bad papers Good papers Bad papers Title Describes topic but also key findings, themes, and contributions, and/or cases Describes only the topic or method Identifies the geographic location of the research (if relevant) Does not mention location or case study (if relevant) Abstract Clearly states research objectives or questions, methods, findings, limitations, and future directions Focuses only on one or two aspects of the manuscript Is closely copy edited, is not repeated later in the text Is full of typos, or repeated in the text itself verbatim Introduction Is short and sharp, often with an attention getting device at the start Has a messy introduction that is too long Presents the core argument or question within the first few paragraphs Presents the core argument too late Is well linked with the rest of the paper Is poorly-linked with the rest of the paper Is well linked with the conclusion and findings Ignores the link between the introduction and conclusion Previews the structure of the paper to come Does not give the structure of the argument Research Questions, Frameworks, Methods and Designs Has a clear, answerable, interesting research question or questions Has an unclear research question or none at all If appropriate, engages with a conceptual framework or frameworks Does not state an appropriate theoretical or conceptual framework Is explicit about research design Does not clarify research design Follows or acknowledges codes of practice for its research design Does not consider codes of practice Mentions and pre-empts methodological limitations Ignores or hides methodological limitations Results Actively interprets data Lets data speak for itself Is selective and judicious about data utilized Presents data not directly linked to the core argument Tightly couples data and analysis Decouples the presentation of data from the analysis Discussion/ Conclusion Aims to make the conclusion the best part of the article Has a thin conclusion Does not start a new argument in the conclusion Starts a new argument in the conclusion Does not present new data in the conclusion Presents new data in the conclusion Uses the conclusion to discuss findings as well as future research directions Lets the conclusion be a summary and nothing else Cautiously discusses limitations and generalizability of findings (or lack thereof) Ignores limitations and/or inappropriately presents findings as fully universal or generalizable General structure Tells a compelling story for the reader Lets the reader wonder what the results mean Has coherent, logical structure with clear headings and subheadings Has jumbled structure and no headings or subheadings Strong paragraph unity Lacks paragraph unity Is well signposted Forgets signposts We've made the review fully open access here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629618307230. Please spread the word. Note that these are merely our own personal views, they do not represent any of the organizations funding our work or any of the journals we may edit for. Criticism and suggestions for improvement also welcome, though please don't reply to all when sending, just write to me and I can consider and share with my co-authors. Sincerely, _________________________ Benjamin K. Sovacool, Ph.D Professor of Energy Policy Director of the Sussex Energy Group Director of the Center on Innovation and Energy Demand Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU) University of Sussex Jubilee Building, Room 367 Falmer, East Sussex, BN1 9SL United Kingdom http://www.sussex.ac.uk/profiles/373957 http://www.sussex.ac.uk/sussexenergygroup/ http://cied.ac.uk/ UK: 01273 877128 International: +44 1273 877128 Email: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Editor in Chief Energy Research & Social Science http://www.journals.elsevier.com/energy-research-and-social-science/ Co-Founder Energy and Social Science Network www.jiscmail.ac.uk/EASSN<http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/EASSN> [cid:[email protected]] -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "gep-ed" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
