Reporting The Findings from Research

535 Words2 Pages

Reporting the findings from research is an essential part of the research process (Meadows, 2008). After a study is complete, researchers usually write a paper to present research findings. The paper might be sent to a scientific journal to be considered for publication or presented at some conference.

Indispensable prerequisite for the publication is to ensure the appropriate audience by choice of relevant publisher. As some journals (e.g., Strategic Management Society) accept only 10% - 30% (Henderson, 2010) of submissions it might be reasonable to check their Call for Papers Section (Strategic Management Society [SMS], 2011) or Domain Statement (Academy of Management Journal [AMJ], 2011) to ensure the research problem might potentially be included in scope of publications. Title of the article, being not the least of important provisions to support the acceptance for publication, should reproduce the purport of the study as briefly and brightly as possible.

Science has a system for assessing the quality of research before it is published. This process is called peer review. Although every journal application process has its own protocols, they all follow the same basic structure.

On submission of the manuscript journal’s editor, who always has a certain level of expertise, accepts the topic relevance to the journal’s scope of subjects. After the editor confirms that the structure of the paper, contribution-to-length ratio (AMJ, 2011), and its stylistic fulfill submission requirements, he/she starts peer-reviewed process by sending the paper to the referees (reviewers) – no less than two leading experts who research and publish in the same field – asking them to assess the paper.

Set of criteria used for peer-review process ...

... middle of paper ...

..., B., Catena, A. (2008). Criteria of the peer review process for publication of experimental and quasiexperimental research in Psychology: A guide for creating research papers. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 8(3), 751-764. Retrieved October 04, 2011, from SMC Learning Materials.

Ryan, F., Coughlan, M., Cronin, P. (2007). Step-by-step guide to critiquing research. Part 2: qualitative research. British Journal of Nursing. 16(12), 738-744. Retrieved October 04, 2011, from: http://www.fchs.ac.ae/fchs/uploads/Files/Semester%202%20-%202010-2011/2200NRS/steps%20of%20lit%20rev%202.pdf

Strategic Management Society. (2011). Submission of Manuscripts. Retrieved October 13, 2011, from: http://smj.strategicmanagement.net/submissions.php

Thurner, S. & Hanel1, R. (2010). Peer-review in a world with rational scientists: Toward selection of the average.

Open Document