PostPoems Be Artistic. Be Creative. Be Inspired!

The Scholar has to Ensure

The Mentioning of the Discovery

The Argument

The manuscript must present a new discovery

The direct and clear-cut definition of the discovery

The particular argument that the discovery is new

Does the Manuscript have a Method that was not Seen Before?

Does the Manuscript have a Better Method Compared to Earlier Methods?

Has the Literature Review been Done?

The scholar has to particularly point out the newness. He also has to clarify why this was not thinkable earlier

The scholar has to focus on  the nature of the method. Besides, he must have some major prior methods so that he can compare his own method against them. He must also mention how this new method is better. There should be a clear argument about why the method is better

The scholar should know if the topic has been reviewed before or not If yes, then what exactly are the changes from the time of the review of the topic

Title

Abstract

Introduction

Literature Review

The title should be short, catchy, informative, something easily understandable yet different and unique.

The abstract is a short (200 words or less), summary of the paper. It must have 1-2 sentences on the following topics:

Background: What are the issues that have made the scholar decide to research about the mentioned topic? What is the setting that makes this work remarkable or essential?

Aim: What are the aims of this research? What gap is the scholar trying to fill?

Approach: How does the author try to accomplish the aims, such as, experimental method, theoretical approach, mixed approach etc.? What has a really been  done by the scholar of this article?

Results: What are the main results of the research?

Conclusions: What are the chief conclusions? Why are the results vital? Where will they be leading in the future?

The scholar should write the abstract for the research community of a particular journal. He must make sure that, all the information that the abstract has, should also be present in the paper’s body.

He should also keep in mind that the essential information of the paper is present in the abstract.

The scholar should mention the field of work, why it is vital, and what has previously been done (with accurate citations).

He should indicate a gap, raise a research question, or he can also challenge earlier work in this sector.

Then, he should shape the purpose and reveal the current research by plainly showing what is new and why it is important.

He must avoid the repetition of the abstract here; there should be no pointless background information; he should not overstate the significance

of the work; he must not claim newness without an appropriate literature search.

A literature review is actually a full summary of earlier research on a topic. It is the survey of the books, research articles, and other topic related sources, range of research, or concept. The review should itemize, explain, summarize, impartially assess and clear up this earlier research. It should provide a theoretical foundation for the research and support the scholar to decide about the nature of the research.

Method (Theory, Design, Materials and So on)

Results

Discussion

Conclusions

This section is the description of how the results are produced with enough detail. It will help an independent researcher to reproduce the results necessarily to allow confirmation of the conclusions.

The scholar should ensure that the readers can easily evaluate inner validity (the results must support the conclusions.

The scholar should make sure that, after reading the paper, the readers should be able to evaluate outer validity also (whether the conclusions are correctly generalized beyond these particular results or not).

The selected method of research must be justified.

There should be justifications of the statistical approaches and data analysis with the considerations of the assumptions and partialities.

The results should not be added to the Method section; no unnecessary details must be there.

The scholar should present the results of the article in logical sequence. He can use graphs and tables if needed.

He should explain the results and display how they are helpful in answering the research questions that he has presented in the Introduction.

He must present the results and then explain them.

The scholar should summarize the results here by discussing if the results are expected or unexpected. He can compare these results to earlier work, interpret and clarify the results by a model or theory, and hypothesize about their generality.

He should discuss any difficulties or limitations that he has faced while doing the work.

The scholar should also discuss possible different descriptions for the results.

The scholar should not present results that he has not discussed; if the discussion does not have relationship with the results, it is unacceptable; he must present the results and discussion in logical order, not in chronological order; the results should support the conclusions; he should not draw conclusions from results without rational arguments.

The scholar should give a very short summary of the Results and Discussion.

He should lay emphasis on the implications or consequences of the findings by explaining how the research is important.

He should present the most common claims that the proof can support.

The author can also provide a future outlook on the research.

He must not repeat the abstract, and background data from the Introduction; it is not acceptable if he introduces new proof or new arguments that are not present in the Results and Discussion sections; he must not repeat the arguments that he has made in the Results and Discussion parts; he must not fail to address each of the research questions that he mentioned in the Introduction.

Cautiously checking the author guidelines and revising the manuscript consequently

Tightening the Text and Avoid Unnecessary Parts

References  Section Must be in Its Proper Place

The Placements of the Figures and Tables, If Any

If the journal has page or word limits, the rules should be maintained.

The scholar should tighten the text

He should remove the unnecessary texts. He should follow the author guidelines and shift the figures, tables etc. to the supplementary material section, if needed.

He should avoid including references in supplementary material.

Several journals require a particular sequence of items, such as, moving all figures and tables to the last part of the paper.

The Acknowledgement of the Funders

Reading and Re-reading the manuscript

Sharing the Manuscript with the Colleagues

Cover Letter

The scholar should acknowledge the institute or the people who funded for the article, if any

The paper should be read and re-read many times to ensure that there are no mistakes related to grammar, punctuation, etc.

Before submitting the manuscript to a particular journal, the scholar should share it with colleagues [at least two to three] and revise it as they say or mention through the feedback.

The scholar should prepare an excellent cover letter to submit to the journal along with the research paper.