| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 14: |
Line 14: |
| === Introduction === | | === Introduction === |
|
| |
|
| Your introduction should be short: not more than 2-3 pages and 5-6 paragraphs. Your introduction should only seek to do three things (with an optional fourth): | | Your introduction should be short: not more than 2-3 pages and 5-6 paragraphs. Your introduction should only seek to do three things: |
|
| |
|
| # Introduce and motivate your work. What is the topic of this research? Why is this research worth pursuing? | | # Introduce and motivate your work. |
| # Establish the importance, relevance, and impact of your work (what is the research question? why is the question important? what data/methods does the paper use to answer the question?) providing a clear answer to the question, "Why should a reader care?" | | # Establish the importance, relevance, and impact of your work providing a clear answer to the question, "Why should a reader care?" |
| # Foreshadow the key findings and contributions of the study. What do we know now that we did not know before? | | # In the final paragraph, lay out the organization of the rest of the paper. |
| # (Optional) In the final paragraph, lay out the organization of the rest of the paper.
| |
|
| |
|
| === Background === | | === Background === |
|
| |
|
| There is more general advice on the topic of writing an introduction and background section [[CommunityData:Advice on writing a background section to an academic paper|elsewhere on the wiki]] but, given a solid introduction that does its job, your background section should only needs to do two additional things:
| | I have more general advice on this [[CommunityData:Advice on writing a background section to an academic paper|elsewhere on the wiki]] but the important point is that the background really only needs to do two things: |
|
| |
|
| # Define the terms you'll be using in your study. | | # Define the terms you'll be using in your study. |
| # Build up the rationale for your hypotheses. | | # Build up the rationale for your hypotheses. |
|
| |
|
| Critically, ''a background section is not a comprehensive literature review''. Done well, it is nothing more than a coherent argument that presents your research questions and the rationale that lies behind them. That's it. | | Critically, a background section ''is not a comprehensive literature review''. It should be a coherant argument that explains and presents your research questions. |
|
| |
|
| The background section should end with your hypothesis or hypotheses. If you have several distinct hypotheses, it might make sense to create subsections of your background for each hypothesis. Then you can end each subsection with the hypothesis itself. | | The background section should end with your hypothesis or hypotheses. If you have several distinct hypotheses, you can end each subsection with the hypothesis once you have presented the terms and rationales for each. |
|
| |
|
| === Research Design === | | === Research Design === |
|
| |
|
| This section should present details of how you carried out your study. Usually, it will includes subsections that touch on each of the following items (although not every item needs it's own subsection, it's fine if they have them): | | This section should present details of how you carried out your study. Usually, it will includes subsections that touch on (if they are not explicitly named): |
|
| |
|
| ;Empirical Setting: Use this section to describe the site of your research in detail and provide any important context. | | ;Empirical Setting: Describe the site of your research in detail. |
| ;Research Ethics: Describe any ethical issues related to this work. For example, this is a place to describe the process through which you got IRB approval to carry out your research. If your work does not require IRB approval, say this and explain how your work minimizes risks to the human subjects whose data is captured in your dataset. | | ;Research Ethics: Describe any IRB approval you carried out for this research. If your work does not require IRB approval, describe this and explain how your work minimizes risks to the human subjects whose data is captured in your dataset. |
| ;Procedures: Describe the process that you used to collect your data. Detail choices you made along the way that include or excluded any data. This doesn't need to be a diary of everything you tried but it ''should'' be comprehensive enough for someone to reproduce your dataset given access to the same material and setting that you had. | | ;Procedures: Describe the process that you used to collect your data. Detail choices you made along the way that include or excluded any data. |
| ;Sample: Describe your sample. This will include the number of observations in your sample but also any other details or summary statistics that help us understand the nature of the sample you have collected.
| | ;Measures: Describe every variable you included in your model and how it was constructed and how it is coded. It usually makes sense to start with dependent variables, then focus on question predictors, and finally talk about control variables. |
| ;Measures: Describe every variable you included in your analysis and model and describe how it was constructed and/or coded. It usually makes sense to start with dependent variables, then focus on question predictors, and finally talk about control variables. Often it makes sense to use a table to organize this information. This section must establish your ''variable names'', your ''variable definitions'', and your ''value codings''. This is an appropriate place to include your tables of univariate and bivariate statistics for all of the variables in your model. | | ;Sample: Describe your sample. This will include the number of observations in your sample but also any other details or summary statistics that help us understand the nature of the sample you have collected.. This is an appropriate place to include your tables of univariate and bivariate statistics. |
| ;Analytic Plan: The analytic plan should detail all the of the analyses that you performed. You should mention what type of model you used and you should explain why you believe it is the appropriate method. Typically, this includes specifying the regression model that you've used. You should include the regression equation (e.g. <math>\widehat{\mathrm{your~DV}} = \beta_0 + \beta_1\mathrm{your~IV} + \varepsilon</math>). | | ;Analytic Plan: The analytic plan should detail all the of the analyses that you perfromed. Typically, this includes specifying the regression model that you've used by writing out the equation. You should mention what type of model you used and you should explain why you believe it is the appropriate method. |
|
| |
|
| === Findings === | | === Findings === |
| Line 47: |
Line 46: |
| With good preparation a findings section can be very short. | | With good preparation a findings section can be very short. |
|
| |
|
| My findings sections usually:
| |
|
| |
| * Refer to a table with the results from my fitted models.
| |
| * Interpret the coefficients in the models directly from the tables. I usually mention the estimates as well as the standard errors and ''t''-statistics and ''p''-values.
| |
| * Next, I described predicted values from the model for hypothetical (often called "prototypical") observations. I frequently hold all values at their sample median and vary only the key question predictor by a reasonable amount (e.g., from the 25th quartile to the 75th quartile). If I plug those values into my model, what are the results?
| |
| * I usually include a visualization or graph of model predicted values.
| |
| * Finally, I usually try and include a paragraph that interprets the controls with at least reference to their signs. Were the controls effective? Did they point the way we expected. The controls are the controls, after all, so they aren't the main event. That said, show us that you paid attention to them at least.
| |
|
| |
| As you write the section, walk folks through the substantive takeaways from your results. Explain how these results support, or provide evidence that fails to support, your hypotheses. Be very explicit.
| |
|
| |
| === Threats to Validity / Limitations ===
| |
|
| |
| Every study has limitations and important threats to your validity. It's your job to describe all the way that your results are contingent. In particular, make sure you discuss:
| |
|
| |
| ;Threats to internal validity: Why might we doubt the results of this work? What assumptions that underly your results may not hold? Why not? What are the threats to construct validity that underly your analysis?
| |
| ;Threats to external validity: Explain why your work might fail to generalize to other empirical settings or samples?
| |
|
| |
| To the extent that you can present evidence, additional analyses, or robustness checks that address these concerns, that's great. To the extent that some of these concerns will be left on the table, it's better for you to foreground these here.
| |
|
| |
| Explain why, even with important threats and limitations, you think your work still makes an important contribution.
| |
|
| |
|
| | === Threats to Validity (or Limitations) === |
| === Discussion === | | === Discussion === |
|
| |
| * Summarize your findings.
| |
| * Connect back to your background and the initial rationale described in the front-end of your paper.
| |
| * Discuss future research. Don't just say that future research is needed but explain, concretely, ''what particular future work'' would address the limitations of your work described in the previous section.
| |
|
| |
| === Bibliography === | | === Bibliography === |
|
| |
| Straight-forward enough but read it carefully before you submit. Misspelled authors names don't seem like a huge deal but they can haunt you. The misspelled authors ''will'' notice.
| |
|
| |
| === Appendix ===
| |
|
| |
| Nearly every journal allows you to have an online appendix.
| |
|
| |
| Appendixes can include copy of instruments. longer descriptions of variables or a dataset or the process necessary to collect it, additional robustness checks and tables, commentary on specific analyses. These are unrestricted. Use them.
| |
|
| |
| Not every journal allows you to submit these with the paper. If your journal doesn't, you can submit your appendix to [https://figshare.com/ FigShare] which will create an archival version with a DOI that you can cite from your manuscript and which will be maintained by librariand archives going forward.
| |
|
| |
|
| == Tables == | | == Tables == |
|
| |
| There are three types of tables that every every quantitative paper should include:
| |
|
| |
| ;Univariate statistics: This should include 1-3 tables that describes the mean, median, standard deviation, and range of every variable in your analysis. If you have many categorical or dichotomous variables, you'll probably just want to show proportions and counts.
| |
| ;Bivariate statistics: In most cases, a simple triangular correlation table output from <code>cor()</code> is enough.
| |
| ;Regression/model results: This should should be the central piece of evidence presented in your paper. I like the tables produced by <code>screenreg()</code> (or really, <code>texreg()</code> and <code>htmlreg()</code>) in the [https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/texreg/index.html texreg package in R]. [https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/stargazer/index.html stargazer] and [https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/apsrtable/index.html apsrtable] do something very similar.
| |
|
| |
|
| == Credit == | | == Credit == |
|
| |
|
| Much of this material is drawn and adapted from John B. Willett's "Structure of a Scholarly Research Paper." | | Much of this material is drawn and adapted from John B. Willett's "Structure of a Scholarly Research Paper." |
