how to publish a research article

PRO Courses Guides New Tech Help Pro Expert Videos About wikiHow Pro Upgrade Sign In
EDIT Edit this Article
EXPLORE Tech Help Pro About Us Random Article Quizzes Request a New Article Community Dashboard This Or That Game Popular Categories Arts and Entertainment Artwork Books Movies Computers and Electronics Computers Phone Skills Technology Hacks Health Men's Health Mental Health Women's Health Relationships Dating Love Relationship Issues Hobbies and Crafts Crafts Drawing Games Education & Communication Communication Skills Personal Development Studying Personal Care and Style Fashion Hair Care Personal Hygiene Youth Personal Care School Stuff Dating All Categories Arts and Entertainment Finance and Business Home and Garden Relationship Quizzes Cars & Other Vehicles Food and Entertaining Personal Care and Style Sports and Fitness Computers and Electronics Health Pets and Animals Travel Education & Communication Hobbies and Crafts Philosophy and Religion Work World Family Life Holidays and Traditions Relationships Youth
Browse Articles
Learn Something New
Quizzes Hot
This Or That Game New
Train Your Brain
Explore More
Support wikiHow
About wikiHow
Log in / Sign up
Education and Communications
College University and Postgraduate
Academic Writing
Research Papers

How to Write and Publish Your Research in a Journal

Last Updated: February 26, 2024 Fact Checked

Choosing a Journal

Writing the research paper, editing & revising your paper, submitting your paper, navigating the peer review process, research paper help.

This article was co-authored by Matthew Snipp, PhD and by wikiHow staff writer, Cheyenne Main . C. Matthew Snipp is the Burnet C. and Mildred Finley Wohlford Professor of Humanities and Sciences in the Department of Sociology at Stanford University. He is also the Director for the Institute for Research in the Social Science’s Secure Data Center. He has been a Research Fellow at the U.S. Bureau of the Census and a Fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences. He has published 3 books and over 70 articles and book chapters on demography, economic development, poverty and unemployment. He is also currently serving on the National Institute of Child Health and Development’s Population Science Subcommittee. He holds a Ph.D. in Sociology from the University of Wisconsin—Madison. There are 13 references cited in this article, which can be found at the bottom of the page. This article has been fact-checked, ensuring the accuracy of any cited facts and confirming the authority of its sources. This article has been viewed 695,884 times.

Publishing a research paper in a peer-reviewed journal allows you to network with other scholars, get your name and work into circulation, and further refine your ideas and research. Before submitting your paper, make sure it reflects all the work you’ve done and have several people read over it and make comments. Keep reading to learn how you can choose a journal, prepare your work for publication, submit it, and revise it after you get a response back.

Things You Should Know

Create a list of journals you’d like to publish your work in and choose one that best aligns with your topic and your desired audience.
Prepare your manuscript using the journal’s requirements and ask at least 2 professors or supervisors to review your paper.
Write a cover letter that “sells” your manuscript, says how your research adds to your field and explains why you chose the specific journal you’re submitting to.

Step 1 Create a list of journals you’d like to publish your work in.

Ask your professors or supervisors for well-respected journals that they’ve had good experiences publishing with and that they read regularly.
Many journals also only accept specific formats, so by choosing a journal before you start, you can write your article to their specifications and increase your chances of being accepted.
If you’ve already written a paper you’d like to publish, consider whether your research directly relates to a hot topic or area of research in the journals you’re looking into.

Step 2 Look at each journal’s audience, exposure, policies, and procedures.

Review the journal’s peer review policies and submission process to see if you’re comfortable creating or adjusting your work according to their standards.
Open-access journals can increase your readership because anyone can access them.

Step 1 Craft an effective introduction with a thesis statement.

Scientific research papers: Instead of a “thesis,” you might write a “research objective” instead. This is where you state the purpose of your research.
“This paper explores how George Washington’s experiences as a young officer may have shaped his views during difficult circumstances as a commanding officer.”
“This paper contends that George Washington’s experiences as a young officer on the 1750s Pennsylvania frontier directly impacted his relationship with his Continental Army troops during the harsh winter at Valley Forge.”

Step 2 Write the literature review and the body of your paper.

Scientific research papers: Include a “materials and methods” section with the step-by-step process you followed and the materials you used. [5] X Research source
Read other research papers in your field to see how they’re written. Their format, writing style, subject matter, and vocabulary can help guide your own paper. [6] X Research source

Step 3 Write your conclusion that ties back to your thesis or research objective.

If you’re writing about George Washington’s experiences as a young officer, you might emphasize how this research changes our perspective of the first president of the U.S.
Link this section to your thesis or research objective.
If you’re writing a paper about ADHD, you might discuss other applications for your research.

Step 4 Write an abstract that describes what your paper is about.

Scientific research papers: You might include your research and/or analytical methods, your main findings or results, and the significance or implications of your research.
Try to get as many people as you can to read over your abstract and provide feedback before you submit your paper to a journal.

Step 1 Prepare your manuscript according to the journal’s requirements.

They might also provide templates to help you structure your manuscript according to their specific guidelines. [11] X Research source

Step 2 Ask 2 colleagues to review your paper and revise it with their notes.

Not all journal reviewers will be experts on your specific topic, so a non-expert “outsider’s perspective” can be valuable.

Step 1 Check your sources for plagiarism and identify 5 to 6 keywords.

If you have a paper on the purification of wastewater with fungi, you might use both the words “fungi” and “mushrooms.”
Use software like iThenticate, Turnitin, or PlagScan to check for similarities between the submitted article and published material available online. [15] X Research source

Step 2 Write a cover letter explaining why you chose their journal.

Header: Address the editor who will be reviewing your manuscript by their name, include the date of submission, and the journal you are submitting to.
First paragraph: Include the title of your manuscript, the type of paper it is (like review, research, or case study), and the research question you wanted to answer and why.
Second paragraph: Explain what was done in your research, your main findings, and why they are significant to your field.
Third paragraph: Explain why the journal’s readers would be interested in your work and why your results are important to your field.
Conclusion: State the author(s) and any journal requirements that your work complies with (like ethical standards”).
“We confirm that this manuscript has not been published elsewhere and is not under consideration by another journal.”
“All authors have approved the manuscript and agree with its submission to [insert the name of the target journal].”

Step 3 Submit your article according to the journal’s submission guidelines.

Submit your article to only one journal at a time.
When submitting online, use your university email account. This connects you with a scholarly institution, which can add credibility to your work.

Step 1 Try not to panic when you get the journal’s initial response.

Accept: Only minor adjustments are needed, based on the provided feedback by the reviewers. A first submission will rarely be accepted without any changes needed.
Revise and Resubmit: Changes are needed before publication can be considered, but the journal is still very interested in your work.
Reject and Resubmit: Extensive revisions are needed. Your work may not be acceptable for this journal, but they might also accept it if significant changes are made.
Reject: The paper isn’t and won’t be suitable for this publication, but that doesn’t mean it might not work for another journal.

Step 2 Revise your paper based on the reviewers’ feedback.

Try organizing the reviewer comments by how easy it is to address them. That way, you can break your revisions down into more manageable parts.
If you disagree with a comment made by a reviewer, try to provide an evidence-based explanation when you resubmit your paper.

Step 3 Resubmit to the same journal or choose another from your list.

If you’re resubmitting your paper to the same journal, include a point-by-point response paper that talks about how you addressed all of the reviewers’ comments in your revision. [22] X Research source
If you’re not sure which journal to submit to next, you might be able to ask the journal editor which publications they recommend.

Expert Q&A

About This Article

To publish a research paper, ask a colleague or professor to review your paper and give you feedback. Once you've revised your work, familiarize yourself with different academic journals so that you can choose the publication that best suits your paper. Make sure to look at the "Author's Guide" so you can format your paper according to the guidelines for that publication. Then, submit your paper and don't get discouraged if it is not accepted right away. You may need to revise your paper and try again. To learn about the different responses you might get from journals, see our reviewer's explanation below. Did this summary help you? Yes No

Send fan mail to authors

Reader Success Stories

RAMDEV GOHIL

Oct 16, 2017

Did this article help you?

David Okandeji

Oct 23, 2019

Revati Joshi

Feb 13, 2017

Shahzad Khan

Jul 1, 2017

Apr 7, 2017

Featured Articles

Watch Articles

Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
Do Not Sell or Share My Info
Not Selling Info

wikiHow Tech Help Pro:

Level up your tech skills and stay ahead of the curve

SpringerLink shop

How to publish an article? – Step by step

If you plan to submit an article to one of our journals, or have any questions during the publication process, this helpdesk will guide you through manuscript submission, production and the services you can expect after your article’s publication.

1. Before you start

The following topics will be important during the early stages of writing your article.

Publishing Ethics
Open Access
Impact Factor
Rights, permissions and licensing
Copyright and plagiarism

2. Turning your manuscript into an article

Preparation, publication.

- Find the right journal for your manuscript

- The Springer Journal Selector

- Manuscript preparation (reference styles, artwork guidelines, etc.)

3. After publication

If your article has been published, the following topics are important for you:

Abstracting & Indexing
Online access to my article
Citation Alert
Book discounts
Marketing to worldwide audiences

Buy Me a Coffee

Home » How to Publish a Research Paper – Step by Step Guide

How to Publish a Research Paper – Step by Step Guide

Table of Contents

Publishing a research paper is an important step for researchers to disseminate their findings to a wider audience and contribute to the advancement of knowledge in their field. Whether you are a graduate student, a postdoctoral fellow, or an established researcher, publishing a paper requires careful planning, rigorous research, and clear writing. In this process, you will need to identify a research question , conduct a thorough literature review , design a methodology, analyze data, and draw conclusions. Additionally, you will need to consider the appropriate journals or conferences to submit your work to and adhere to their guidelines for formatting and submission. In this article, we will discuss some ways to publish your Research Paper.

How to Publish a Research Paper

To Publish a Research Paper follow the guide below:

Conduct original research : Conduct thorough research on a specific topic or problem. Collect data, analyze it, and draw conclusions based on your findings.
Write the paper : Write a detailed paper describing your research. It should include an abstract, introduction, literature review, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion.
Choose a suitable journal or conference : Look for a journal or conference that specializes in your research area. You can check their submission guidelines to ensure your paper meets their requirements.
Prepare your submission: Follow the guidelines and prepare your submission, including the paper, abstract, cover letter, and any other required documents.
Submit the paper: Submit your paper online through the journal or conference website. Make sure you meet the submission deadline.
Peer-review process : Your paper will be reviewed by experts in the field who will provide feedback on the quality of your research, methodology, and conclusions.
Revisions : Based on the feedback you receive, revise your paper and resubmit it.
Acceptance : Once your paper is accepted, you will receive a notification from the journal or conference. You may need to make final revisions before the paper is published.
Publication : Your paper will be published online or in print. You can also promote your work through social media or other channels to increase its visibility.

How to Choose Journal for Research Paper Publication

Here are some steps to follow to help you select an appropriate journal:

Identify your research topic and audience : Your research topic and intended audience should guide your choice of journal. Identify the key journals in your field of research and read the scope and aim of the journal to determine if your paper is a good fit.
Analyze the journal’s impact and reputation : Check the impact factor and ranking of the journal, as well as its acceptance rate and citation frequency. A high-impact journal can give your paper more visibility and credibility.
Consider the journal’s publication policies : Look for the journal’s publication policies such as the word count limit, formatting requirements, open access options, and submission fees. Make sure that you can comply with the requirements and that the journal is in line with your publication goals.
Look at recent publications : Review recent issues of the journal to evaluate whether your paper would fit in with the journal’s current content and style.
Seek advice from colleagues and mentors: Ask for recommendations and suggestions from your colleagues and mentors in your field, especially those who have experience publishing in the same or similar journals.
Be prepared to make changes : Be prepared to revise your paper according to the requirements and guidelines of the chosen journal. It is also important to be open to feedback from the editor and reviewers.

List of Journals for Research Paper Publications

There are thousands of academic journals covering various fields of research. Here are some of the most popular ones, categorized by field:

General/Multidisciplinary

Nature: https://www.nature.com/
Science: https://www.sciencemag.org/
PLOS ONE: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS): https://www.pnas.org/
The Lancet: https://www.thelancet.com/
JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association): https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama

Social Sciences/Humanities

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/psp
Journal of Consumer Research: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/journals/jcr
Journal of Educational Psychology: https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/edu
Journal of Applied Psychology: https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/apl
Journal of Communication: https://academic.oup.com/joc
American Journal of Political Science: https://ajps.org/
Journal of International Business Studies: https://www.jibs.net/
Journal of Marketing Research: https://www.ama.org/journal-of-marketing-research/

Natural Sciences

Journal of Biological Chemistry: https://www.jbc.org/
Cell: https://www.cell.com/
Science Advances: https://advances.sciencemag.org/
Chemical Reviews: https://pubs.acs.org/journal/chreay
Angewandte Chemie: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/15213765
Physical Review Letters: https://journals.aps.org/prl/
Journal of Geophysical Research: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/2156531X
Journal of High Energy Physics: https://link.springer.com/journal/13130

Engineering/Technology

IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/RecentIssue.jsp?punumber=5962385
IEEE Transactions on Power Systems: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/RecentIssue.jsp?punumber=59
IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/RecentIssue.jsp?punumber=42
IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/RecentIssue.jsp?punumber=87
Journal of Engineering Mechanics: https://ascelibrary.org/journal/jenmdt
Journal of Materials Science: https://www.springer.com/journal/10853
Journal of Chemical Engineering of Japan: https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/browse/jcej
Journal of Mechanical Design: https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/mechanicaldesign

Medical/Health Sciences

New England Journal of Medicine: https://www.nejm.org/
The BMJ (formerly British Medical Journal): https://www.bmj.com/
Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA): https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama
Annals of Internal Medicine: https://www.acpjournals.org/journal/aim
American Journal of Epidemiology: https://academic.oup.com/aje
Journal of Clinical Oncology: https://ascopubs.org/journal/jco
Journal of Infectious Diseases: https://academic.oup.com/jid

List of Conferences for Research Paper Publications

There are many conferences that accept research papers for publication. The specific conferences you should consider will depend on your field of research. Here are some suggestions for conferences in a few different fields:

Computer Science and Information Technology:

IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM): https://www.ieee-infocom.org/
ACM SIGCOMM Conference on Data Communication: https://conferences.sigcomm.org/sigcomm/
IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP): https://www.ieee-security.org/TC/SP/
ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS): https://www.sigsac.org/ccs/
ACM Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (CHI): https://chi2022.acm.org/

Engineering:

IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA): https://www.ieee-icra.org/
International Conference on Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering (ICMAE): http://www.icmae.org/
International Conference on Civil and Environmental Engineering (ICCEE): http://www.iccee.org/
International Conference on Materials Science and Engineering (ICMSE): http://www.icmse.org/
International Conference on Energy and Power Engineering (ICEPE): http://www.icepe.org/

Natural Sciences:

American Chemical Society National Meeting & Exposition: https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/meetings/national-meeting.html
American Physical Society March Meeting: https://www.aps.org/meetings/march/
International Conference on Environmental Science and Technology (ICEST): http://www.icest.org/
International Conference on Natural Science and Environment (ICNSE): http://www.icnse.org/
International Conference on Life Science and Biological Engineering (LSBE): http://www.lsbe.org/

Social Sciences:

Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association (ASA): https://www.asanet.org/annual-meeting-2022
International Conference on Social Science and Humanities (ICSSH): http://www.icssh.org/
International Conference on Psychology and Behavioral Sciences (ICPBS): http://www.icpbs.org/
International Conference on Education and Social Science (ICESS): http://www.icess.org/
International Conference on Management and Information Science (ICMIS): http://www.icmis.org/

How to Publish a Research Paper in Journal

Publishing a research paper in a journal is a crucial step in disseminating scientific knowledge and contributing to the field. Here are the general steps to follow:

Choose a research topic : Select a topic of your interest and identify a research question or problem that you want to investigate. Conduct a literature review to identify the gaps in the existing knowledge that your research will address.
Conduct research : Develop a research plan and methodology to collect data and conduct experiments. Collect and analyze data to draw conclusions that address the research question.
Write a paper: Organize your findings into a well-structured paper with clear and concise language. Your paper should include an introduction, literature review, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion. Use academic language and provide references for your sources.
Choose a journal: Choose a journal that is relevant to your research topic and audience. Consider factors such as impact factor, acceptance rate, and the reputation of the journal.
Follow journal guidelines : Review the submission guidelines and formatting requirements of the journal. Follow the guidelines carefully to ensure that your paper meets the journal’s requirements.
Submit your paper : Submit your paper to the journal through the online submission system or by email. Include a cover letter that briefly explains the significance of your research and why it is suitable for the journal.
Wait for reviews: Your paper will be reviewed by experts in the field. Be prepared to address their comments and make revisions to your paper.
Revise and resubmit: Make revisions to your paper based on the reviewers’ comments and resubmit it to the journal. If your paper is accepted, congratulations! If not, consider revising and submitting it to another journal.
Address reviewer comments : Reviewers may provide comments and suggestions for revisions to your paper. Address these comments carefully and thoughtfully to improve the quality of your paper.
Submit the final version: Once your revisions are complete, submit the final version of your paper to the journal. Be sure to follow any additional formatting guidelines and requirements provided by the journal.
Publication : If your paper is accepted, it will be published in the journal. Some journals provide online publication while others may publish a print version. Be sure to cite your published paper in future research and communicate your findings to the scientific community.

How to Publish a Research Paper for Students

Here are some steps you can follow to publish a research paper as an Under Graduate or a High School Student:

Select a topic: Choose a topic that is relevant and interesting to you, and that you have a good understanding of.
Conduct research : Gather information and data on your chosen topic through research, experiments, surveys, or other means.
Write the paper : Start with an outline, then write the introduction, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion sections of the paper. Be sure to follow any guidelines provided by your instructor or the journal you plan to submit to.
Edit and revise: Review your paper for errors in spelling, grammar, and punctuation. Ask a peer or mentor to review your paper and provide feedback for improvement.
Choose a journal : Look for journals that publish papers in your field of study and that are appropriate for your level of research. Some popular journals for students include PLOS ONE, Nature, and Science.
Submit the paper: Follow the submission guidelines for the journal you choose, which typically include a cover letter, abstract, and formatting requirements. Be prepared to wait several weeks to months for a response.
Address feedback : If your paper is accepted with revisions, address the feedback from the reviewers and resubmit your paper. If your paper is rejected, review the feedback and consider revising and resubmitting to a different journal.

How to Publish a Research Paper for Free

Publishing a research paper for free can be challenging, but it is possible. Here are some steps you can take to publish your research paper for free:

Choose a suitable open-access journal: Look for open-access journals that are relevant to your research area. Open-access journals allow readers to access your paper without charge, so your work will be more widely available.
Check the journal’s reputation : Before submitting your paper, ensure that the journal is reputable by checking its impact factor, publication history, and editorial board.
Follow the submission guidelines : Every journal has specific guidelines for submitting papers. Make sure to follow these guidelines carefully to increase the chances of acceptance.
Submit your paper : Once you have completed your research paper, submit it to the journal following their submission guidelines.
Wait for the review process: Your paper will undergo a peer-review process, where experts in your field will evaluate your work. Be patient during this process, as it can take several weeks or even months.
Revise your paper : If your paper is rejected, don’t be discouraged. Revise your paper based on the feedback you receive from the reviewers and submit it to another open-access journal.
Promote your research: Once your paper is published, promote it on social media and other online platforms. This will increase the visibility of your work and help it reach a wider audience.

Journals and Conferences for Free Research Paper publications

Here are the websites of the open-access journals and conferences mentioned:

Open-Access Journals:

PLOS ONE – https://journals.plos.org/plosone/
BMC Research Notes – https://bmcresnotes.biomedcentral.com/
Frontiers in… – https://www.frontiersin.org/
Journal of Open Research Software – https://openresearchsoftware.metajnl.com/
PeerJ – https://peerj.com/

Conferences:

IEEE Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOM) – https://globecom2022.ieee-globecom.org/
IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM) – https://infocom2022.ieee-infocom.org/
IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM) – https://www.ieee-icdm.org/
ACM SIGCOMM Conference on Data Communication (SIGCOMM) – https://conferences.sigcomm.org/sigcomm/
ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS) – https://www.sigsac.org/ccs/CCS2022/

Importance of Research Paper Publication

Research paper publication is important for several reasons, both for individual researchers and for the scientific community as a whole. Here are some reasons why:

Advancing scientific knowledge : Research papers provide a platform for researchers to present their findings and contribute to the body of knowledge in their field. These papers often contain novel ideas, experimental data, and analyses that can help to advance scientific understanding.
Building a research career : Publishing research papers is an essential component of building a successful research career. Researchers are often evaluated based on the number and quality of their publications, and having a strong publication record can increase one’s chances of securing funding, tenure, or a promotion.
Peer review and quality control: Publication in a peer-reviewed journal means that the research has been scrutinized by other experts in the field. This peer review process helps to ensure the quality and validity of the research findings.
Recognition and visibility : Publishing a research paper can bring recognition and visibility to the researchers and their work. It can lead to invitations to speak at conferences, collaborations with other researchers, and media coverage.
Impact on society : Research papers can have a significant impact on society by informing policy decisions, guiding clinical practice, and advancing technological innovation.

Advantages of Research Paper Publication

There are several advantages to publishing a research paper, including:

Recognition: Publishing a research paper allows researchers to gain recognition for their work, both within their field and in the academic community as a whole. This can lead to new collaborations, invitations to conferences, and other opportunities to share their research with a wider audience.
Career advancement : A strong publication record can be an important factor in career advancement, particularly in academia. Publishing research papers can help researchers secure funding, grants, and promotions.
Dissemination of knowledge : Research papers are an important way to share new findings and ideas with the broader scientific community. By publishing their research, scientists can contribute to the collective body of knowledge in their field and help advance scientific understanding.
Feedback and peer review : Publishing a research paper allows other experts in the field to provide feedback on the research, which can help improve the quality of the work and identify potential flaws or limitations. Peer review also helps ensure that research is accurate and reliable.
Citation and impact : Published research papers can be cited by other researchers, which can help increase the impact and visibility of the research. High citation rates can also help establish a researcher’s reputation and credibility within their field.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

How to Cite Research Paper – All Formats and...

Delimitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Research Paper Format – Types, Examples and...

Research Design – Types, Methods and Examples

Research Paper Title – Writing Guide and Example

Research Paper Introduction – Writing Guide and...

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it's official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings
Browse Titles

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2024 Jan-.

StatPearls [Internet].

How to write and publish a scientific manuscript.

Martin R. Huecker ; Jacob Shreffler .

Affiliations

Last Update: October 31, 2022 .

Definition/Introduction

A clinician should continuously strive to increase knowledge by reviewing and critiquing papers, thoughtfully considering how to integrate new data into practice. This is the essence of evidence-based medicine (EBM). [1] When new clinical queries arise, one should seek answers in the published literature. The ability to read a scientific or medical manuscript remains vitally important throughout the career of a clinician.

When gaps exist in the literature, clinicians should consider conducting their own research into these questions. Though typically performed by academic doctors or physician-scientists, medical research is open to all clinicians in both informal and formal methods. Anyone who treats patients can collect data on outcomes to assess the quality of care delivered (quality improvement is research). [2] Though beyond the scope of this chapter, instruction for clinicians on how to conduct research and contribute to medical science is provided by many resources. [3] [4] [5]

Additionally, a clinician who integrates a new practice can study effects on patient outcomes, retro- or prospectively. Continuous practice improvement need not be shared with the larger population of treating providers, but dissemination to the entire scientific community allows widespread adoption, criticism, or further testing for replication of findings.

Issues of Concern

Clinicians who seek to conduct retrospective chart reviews, prospective studies, or even randomized, controlled clinical trials should access the many resources to ensure quality methodology. [5] Once you have followed the appropriate steps to conduct a study (Table 1), you should complete the process by writing a manuscript to describe your findings and share it with other clinicians and researchers. Other resources detail the steps in undertaking writing a review article, but this StatPearls chapter will focus on Writing a Scientific Manuscript for original research. See also the StatPearls chapter for the different types of research manuscripts. [6]

Clinical Significance

Steps to Conducting Research

Develop a research question
Perform a literature search
Identify a gap in the literature
Design a study protocol (including personnel)
Submit to an institutional review board for approval
Collect, responsibly store, and then analyze data
Write a manuscript to interpret and describe your research.

After conducting a quality investigation or a study, one should put together an abstract and manuscript to share results. Researchers can write an abstract in a short amount of time, though the abstract will evolve as the full manuscript moves to completion. Many published and presented abstracts do not reach full manuscript publication. [7] [8] Although journals and conferences do often publish abstracts, studies with important results should be published in full manuscript form to ensure dissemination and allow attempts at replication. [9]

IRB protocols, study design, and data collection and aggregation require a team effort. Those involved in the research should discuss who will contribute to the full manuscript (i.e., qualify as an author) and thus the planned order of authorship to reduce complications at the time of manuscript submission. The author, who devotes the most effort to the paper, is typically the first and corresponding author. In contrast, the last author is often the most senior member of the team, often the principal investigator of the study. All individuals listed as authors should contribute to the manuscript and overall project in some fashion. [10]

The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklist is perhaps the most valuable tool in the process of preparing your manuscript for submission [11] .

Original research manuscripts have the following sections (in chronologic order): [11]

Title and Abstract

Introduction (Background and Objectives)

Methods (Design, Setting, Participants, Variables, Statistics)

Results (Participants, Descriptives, Outcomes, Subgroups)

Tables and Figures

Discussion (Key findings, Limitations, Interpretations)

Conflict of Interest (COI), Author affiliations, Acknowledgments, Funding

Individuals involved in the IRB submission (prior to data collection) can write the introduction and methods of the manuscript before and during the process of data collection and analysis. This head start on writing makes the full manuscript composition task less formidable. The content of the introduction and methods should be well known to the study group prior to data collection and analysis. The introduction should be organized into a “problem/gap/hook” order: what problem does this study address, the precise gap in the literature, and the objectives of this study (in addressing the gap). [12] The methods should provide enough detail such that readers who would like to replicate the study could do so.

Once data is collected and analyzed, authors can write an abstract to organize major themes of the research, understanding that the abstract will undergo edits once the manuscript is complete. Similarly, the title can change with revisions, as authors determine the most salient trends in the data. Most readers will only read the title +/- abstract. Thus these are the most important sections of the paper. The title should be concise and should directly describe the results of the trial– this correlates with more citations. The abstract must convey the crucial findings of the paper, ideally divided into sections for easier reading (unless the desired journal does not allow this). [13]

With the larger picture in mind, authors should create tables and figures that visually convey the themes of the data analysis. Working with statisticians or data experts, authors should devote a great deal of time to this component of the manuscript. Some general concepts: [14]

Only include tables/figures that you believe are necessary.
Make sure tables/figures are of high quality, simple, clear, with concise captions.
Do not repeat language in results that appear in tables/figures, i.e., the tables/figures should stand alone.
Consider how the figure will look in grayscale (in case the journal if not in color)

As with the abstract and title, the tables and figures will likely undergo further edits prior to the completion of the manuscript. The abstract and tables/figures should intuitively evolve together to convey the ‘story’ of the research project.

At this point, refer back to the introduction and methods composed during data collection. Make revisions as necessary to reflect the overall narrative of the project. Ensure you have adhered to the originally determined objectives or hypotheses.

Next, focus on the results and discussion. The results should contain only objective data with no interpretation of significance. Describe salient results than do not already receive explanations within the figures and tables. The discussion section begins with a lead paragraph highlighting the most important findings from the study. Then the discussion interprets the current results in light of prior published literature. Ensure citation of keystone papers on this topic, including new papers that have been published since embarking on the current project. Frame your results, describing how this study adds to the literature. The discussion section usually includes study limitations. Attempt to anticipate criticisms of the methodology, the results, the organization of the manuscript itself, and the (ability to draw) conclusions. A stronger limitations section preempts journal reviewer feedback, potentially simplifying the revision/resubmission process.

The conclusion section should be concise, conveying the main take-home points from your study. You can make recommendations for current clinical practice and for future research endeavors. Finally, consider using citation management software such as Endnote or Mendeley. Though initially cumbersome, these software platforms drastically improve revision efforts and allow for easy reference reformatting. All authors should review the manuscript multiple times, potentially sharing with other uninvolved colleagues for objective feedback. Consider who should receive acknowledgment for supporting the project and prepare to disclose conflicts of interest and funding.

Although authors should have an initial idea of which journal to submit to, once the manuscript is near completion, this decision will be more straightforward. Journal rankings are beyond the scope of this StatPearls chapter. Still, generally, one should devise a list of the journals within a specialty in order of highest to lowest impact factor (some sites categorize into tiers). High-quality prospective research and clinical trials have a higher likelihood of acceptance into the more prestigious journals within a specialty or to the high-quality general science or medicine journals. Although many journals have an option for open access publication, and numerous legitimate, open access journals now exist, beware of ‘predatory journals’ that charge a fee to publish and may not be indexed in Pubmed or other databases. [12]

Journals have diverse guidelines for formatting and submission, and the manuscript submission process can be tedious. Prior to submission, review Bordage’s paper on reasons for manuscript rejection. [15] Most journals require a title page and cover letter, the latter of which represents an opportunity to lobby for your paper’s importance. When (not if) you experience manuscript rejections, take reviewer comments and recommendations seriously. Use this valuable feedback for resubmission to the original journal (when invited) or for subsequent submission to other journals. When submitting a requested revision, compose a point by point response to the reviewers and attach a new manuscript with tracked changes. Attempt to resubmit manuscripts as promptly as possible, keeping your work in the hands of journals (allowing you to work on other research). [14]

Nursing, Allied Health, and Interprofessional Team Interventions

The above logistic steps will differ for review articles, case reports, editorials, and other types of submissions. [16] However, the organization, precise methods, and adherence to journal guidelines remain important. See work by Provenzale on principles to increase the likelihood of acceptance for original and revised manuscripts. After submission, revision, resubmission, and proofing, you may experience the fulfillment of an official publication. Academics should promote their scientific work, enhancing the dissemination of research to the wider scientific community. [17] [18] [17] [19]

Review Questions
Access free multiple choice questions on this topic.
Comment on this article.

Disclosure: Martin Huecker declares no relevant financial relationships with ineligible companies.

Disclosure: Jacob Shreffler declares no relevant financial relationships with ineligible companies.

This book is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ ), which permits others to distribute the work, provided that the article is not altered or used commercially. You are not required to obtain permission to distribute this article, provided that you credit the author and journal.

Cite this Page Huecker MR, Shreffler J. How To Write And Publish A Scientific Manuscript. [Updated 2022 Oct 31]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2024 Jan-.

In this Page

Bulk download.

Bulk download StatPearls data from FTP

Related information

PMC PubMed Central citations
PubMed Links to PubMed

Recent Activity

How To Write And Publish A Scientific Manuscript - StatPearls How To Write And Publish A Scientific Manuscript - StatPearls

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

ScienceDirect Support Center

To post social content, you must have a display name. The page will refresh upon submission. Any pending input will be lost.

How do I publish my article with Elsevier?

Follow these steps to submit your article using our online submission system Editorial Manager:

This option may not always be available as some journals do not accept submissions.
Sign in to Editorial Manager, or register if you are a first-time user.
Follow the steps to submit your article.

Helpful tools and pages

These helpful tools and pages available can help you navigate the publication process.

Finding the right journal

Browse Calls for papers
JournalFinder

Help with submitting and tracking your article

Publishing with Elsevier: step-by-step — provides a good overview of the publication process for first-time authors.
Track your accepted article — tool to track your submitted article after it has been accepted.
Journal Article Publishing Support Center — support portal for any questions related to publishing with Elsevier (e.g., open access, publication costs, fees, submission timelines) and contact information.

Was this answer helpful?

Thank you for your feedback, it will help us serve you better. If you require assistance, please scroll down and use one of the contact options to get in touch.

Help us to help you:

Thank you for your feedback!

Why was this answer not helpful?
It was hard to understand / follow.
It did not answer my question.
The solution did not work.
There was a mistake in the answer.
Feel free to leave any comments below: Please enter your feedback to submit this form

How do I use the advanced search?
What are journal pre-proofs?
What can I do on a journal home page?
What are corrected proofs?
How do I buy an article or chapter?

For further assistance:

How to Publish a Research Article

Submit your Research
My Submissions
Article Guidelines
Article Guidelines (New Versions)
Data Guidelines
Article Processing Charges
Finding Article Reviewers
The Peer Review Process
The Editorial Team’s Role
Reviewer Criteria
Dos and Don’ts for Suggesting Reviewers
Hints and Tips for Finding Reviewers
The work is original. The article (or substantial parts of it) must not have been published previously, or be under consideration or review by another journal. Articles previously posted on a preprint server, such as arXiv, SSRN, BioRxiv, MedRxiv can be submitted for publication in Open Research Europe.
At least one author must have or previously had Horizon 2020 funding (for details, see our Publication criteria ).
The reported study meets all applicable research and publication standards . We strongly recommend that you consult our editorial policies for more detail on reporting guidelines and ethical requirements.
Where applicable, all methodological details and relevant data are made available to allow others to replicate the study, and that the article adheres to appropriate reporting guidelines and community standards. For more detail, please see our policies and Data preparation guidelines .
All authors have understood Routledge Open Research’s policies for article publication and its author-led publishing model , which requires authors to actively suggest suitable peer reviewers for their article until at least 2 reviews have been received.
Your article includes full author and affiliation information, and a conflict of interest statement.

ORCID allows identification beyond names. Globally, names can be very common, they can change, they can be transliterated into other alphabets and so reliably linking researchers with their research and organizations can be difficult - this is solved through a unique ORCID iD.
An ORCID iD also allows you to keep a constantly updated digital curriculum vitae. Individuals decide to register, which research activities to connect to their ID, which organizations to allow access, what information to make publicly available, what to share with trusted parties, and what to keep private. Individuals can control their profiles and can change these settings and permissions at any time.
we collect and store authenticated ORCID iDs for authors and reviewers
we publicly display the iDs with the iD icon for those authors and reviewers, linked to their ORCID account
we connect to the user's ORCID record and update it with new published works

Stay Informed

We'll keep you updated on any major new updates to Routledge Open Research

The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000.

You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password.

To sign in, please click here .

If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here .

You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password.

If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here .

If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password.

If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance.

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience and security.

How to Publish a Research Article

Submit your Research
My Submissions
Article Guidelines
Article Guidelines (New Versions)
Data Guidelines
Article Processing Charges
Finding Article Reviewers
The Peer Review Process
The Editorial Team’s Role
Reviewer Criteria
Dos and Don’ts for Suggesting Reviewers
Hints and Tips for Finding Reviewers
The work is original. The manuscript (or substantial parts of it) must not have been published previously, or be under consideration or review by another journal. Manuscripts that were previously posted on a preprint server such as ArXiv or BioRxiv are welcome.
At least one author is a qualified researcher (according to Open Research Central’s authorship criteria ) and has made a key contribution to the article.
The reported study meets all applicable research and publication standards . We strongly recommend that you consult our editorial policies for more detail on reporting guidelines and ethical requirements.
All methodological details and relevant data are made available to allow others to replicate the study, and that the manuscript adheres to appropriate reporting guidelines and community standards. For more detail, please see our policies and Data preparation guidelines .
All authors have understood F1000Research’s policies for article publication and its author-led publishing model , which requires authors to actively suggest suitable peer reviewers for their article until at least 2 reports have been received.
Your manuscript includes full author and affiliation information, and a conflict of interest statement.
You agree to pay any processing charges applicable to this submission. Following submission, we will ask you for the name and email address of the payer, the name of their institution and the country in which they are based. If based in an EU member country , we will also require a VAT registration number.
ORCID allows identification beyond names. Globally, names can be very common, they can change, they can be transliterated into other alphabets and so reliably linking researchers with their research and organizations can be difficult - this is solved through a unique ORCID iD.
An ORCID iD also allows you to keep a constantly updated digital curriculum vitae. Individuals decide to register, which research activities to connect to their ID, which organizations to allow access, what information to make publicly available, what to share with trusted parties, and what to keep private. Individuals can control their profiles and can change these settings and permissions at any time.

How to Publish a Research Article

Submit your Research
My Submissions
Article Guidelines
Article Guidelines (New Versions)
Data Guidelines
Posters and Slides Guidelines
Document Guidelines
Article Processing Charges
Finding Article Reviewers
The Peer Review Process
The Editorial Team’s Role
Reviewer Criteria
Dos and Don’ts for Suggesting Reviewers
Hints and Tips for Finding Reviewers
The work is original. The manuscript (or substantial parts of it) must not have been published previously, or be under consideration or review by another journal. Manuscripts that were previously posted on a preprint server such as ArXiv or BioRxiv are welcome.
At least one author must be formally affiliated with funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (for details, see our Publication criteria ). On submission authors will be asked for the grant number *OPPID that funded the research.
The reported study meets all applicable research and publication standards . We strongly recommend that you consult our editorial policies for more detail on reporting guidelines and ethical requirements.
All methodological details and relevant data are made available to allow others to replicate the study, and that the manuscript adheres to appropriate reporting guidelines and community standards. For more detail, please see our policies and Data preparation guidelines .
All authors have understood Gates Open Research’s policies for article publication and its author-led publishing model , which requires authors to actively suggest suitable peer reviewers for their article until at least 2 reports have been received.
Your manuscript includes full author and affiliation information, and a conflict of interest statement.

ORCID allows identification beyond names. Globally, names can be very common, they can change, they can be transliterated into other alphabets and so reliably linking researchers with their research and organizations can be difficult - this is solved through a unique ORCID iD.
An ORCID iD also allows you to keep a constantly updated digital curriculum vitae. Individuals decide to register, which research activities to connect to their ID, which organizations to allow access, what information to make publicly available, what to share with trusted parties, and what to keep private. Individuals can control their profiles and can change these settings and permissions at any time.
we collect and store authenticated ORCID iDs for authors and reviewers
we publicly display the iDs with the iD icon for those authors and reviewers, linked to their ORCID account
we connect to the user's ORCID record and update it with new published works

Are you a Gates-funded researcher?

If you are a previous or current Gates grant holder, sign up for information about developments, publishing and publications from Gates Open Research.

We'll keep you updated on any major new updates to Gates Open Research

The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000.

You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password.

To sign in, please click here .

If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here .

You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password.

If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here .

If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password.

If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance.

How to Publish a Research Article

Submit your Research
My Submissions
Article Guidelines
Article Guidelines (New Versions)
Data Guidelines
Article Processing Charges
Finding Article Reviewers
The Peer Review Process
The Editorial Team’s Role
Reviewer Criteria
Dos and Don’ts for Suggesting Reviewers
Hints and Tips for Finding Reviewers
The work is original. The manuscript (or substantial parts of it) must not have been published previously, or be under consideration or review by another journal. Manuscripts that were previously posted on a preprint server such as ArXiv or BioRxiv are welcome.
At least one author must be formally affiliated with funding from Wellcome (for more details, see our Publication criteria ).
The reported study meets all applicable research and publication standards . We strongly recommend that you consult our editorial policies for more detail on reporting guidelines and ethical requirements.
All methodological details and relevant data are made available to allow others to replicate the study, and that the manuscript adheres to appropriate reporting guidelines and community standards. For more detail, please see our policies and Data preparation guidelines .
All authors have understood Wellcome Open Research’s policies for article publication and its author-led publishing model , which requires authors to actively suggest suitable peer reviewers for their article until at least 2 reports have been received.
Your manuscript includes full author and affiliation information, and a conflict of interest statement.

ORCID allows identification beyond names. Globally, names can be very common, they can change, they can be transliterated into other alphabets and so reliably linking researchers with their research and organizations can be difficult - this is solved through a unique ORCID iD.
An ORCID iD also allows you to keep a constantly updated digital curriculum vitae. Individuals decide to register, which research activities to connect to their ID, which organizations to allow access, what information to make publicly available, what to share with trusted parties, and what to keep private. Individuals can control their profiles and can change these settings and permissions at any time.
we collect and store authenticated ORCID iDs for authors and reviewers
we publicly display the iDs with the iD icon for those authors and reviewers, linked to their ORCID account
we connect to the user's ORCID record and update it with new published works

Are you a Wellcome-funded researcher?

If you are a previous or current Wellcome grant holder, sign up for information about developments, publishing and publications from Wellcome Open Research.

We'll keep you updated on any major new updates to Wellcome Open Research

The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000.

You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password.

To sign in, please click here .

If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here .

You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password.

If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here .

If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password.

If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance.

Search Menu
Advance Articles
Author Guidelines
Submission Site
Open Access
Self-Archiving Policy
Why Submit?
About Human Communication Research
About International Communication Association
Editorial Board
Advertising & Corporate Services
Journals Career Network
Journals on Oxford Academic
Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

“what theory are you using”, theory is ubiquitous in published communication scholarship, what is theory anyway, is theory really necessary, the chicken or the egg: theory or data first, will any theory do, what is a theoretical contribution, theoretical bandwidth, what are the benefits of theory, the current state of communication theory, looking forward, data availability, conflicts of interest.

< Previous

The role of theory in researching and understanding human communication

Article contents
Figures & tables
Supplementary Data

Timothy R Levine, David M Markowitz, The role of theory in researching and understanding human communication, Human Communication Research , Volume 50, Issue 2, April 2024, Pages 154–161, https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqad037

Permissions Icon Permissions

Communication is a theory-driven discipline, but does it always need to be? This article raises questions related to the role of theory in communication science, with the goal of providing a thoughtful discussion about what theory is, why theory is (or is not) important, the role of exploration in theory development, what constitutes a theoretical contribution, and the current state of theory in the field. We describe communication researchers’ interest with theory by assessing the number of articles in the past decade of research that mention theory (nearly 80% of papers have attended to theory in some way). This article concludes with a forward-looking view of how scholars might think about theory in their work, why exploratory research should be valued more and not considered as conflicting with theory, and how conceptual clarity related to theoretical interests and contributions are imperative for human communication research.

Theory looms large in the practice of human communication scholarship. College-level textbooks on various communication topics describe relevant theories to students enrolled in communication classes. In thesis and dissertation defenses, students are often asked, “What theory are you using?,” implying that they must apply at least one theory to ground their research and contribute to the field. In the peer-review process of academic journals, a perceived failure to be sufficiently theoretical can be grounds for rejection. Few, if any, modern communication scholars would embrace the labels of being “dust-bowl” or atheoretical. Surely, no serious communication scholar is genuinely and categorically against theory. Theory is undeniably a desirable “warm-fuzzy good thing” in modern academic culture ( Mook, 1983 ). Without it, the bedrock of communication and other social sciences is shaky and uncertain. No academic discipline could be built from a purely empirical foundation. Having theory—understanding the value it provides, what we gain by building and extending theory, and the contributions that a scholar can make to theory—is more complicated and nuanced, however. We interrogate these complications in this article.

This article addresses a broad set of questions about the past, present, and future role of theory in communication scholarship: What is theory? Do all scholarly contributions require theory? What does it mean to make a theoretical contribution? What does theory do for us? And, if we continue to accept theory as a scholarly imperative, what is the current state of theory in the field and where might communication theory go in the future? To address these questions, we follow and draw on important commentaries such as those of Chaffee and Berger (1987) , Slater and Gleason (2012) , and DeAndrea and Holbert (2017) , but we provide our own perspective. Unlike similar essays on communication theory, our goal is not to be prescriptive about how to do theory (e.g., how to create or even define theory), nor are we attempting to be pollyannish about the many accepted virtues of theory. Instead, a conversation about communication theory is advanced by asking questions that are hard to answer, interrogating some often-implicit presumptions about the role of theory in communication science, and raising some less obvious implications of theory. This article will succeed if it prompts deeper thought and discussion on the topic of communication theory across many areas of the field. We envision this being useful for early career communication scholars who are uncertain about what theory really is and why it matters, and a thoughtful commentary for seasoned communication researchers who may wrestle with theory development as they move forward in their established research programs.

In our experience, graduate students (and undergrads, junior faculty, visiting scholars, etc.) are frequently asked “what theory are you using?” when trying to position one’s work within communication science at large. This question raises many meta-theoretical issues relevant to this article. First, the question implies that theory is a prerequisite for scholarship. Later in this article, we will argue that this perspective is unfortunately limiting, and that there is a need for exploratory and pre-theoretical inquiry and data. Further, a relevant theory is not always available for each research interest. A better initial question, in our opinion, asks if there is a relevant theory to be tested, extended, or used. When no relevant theory exists, the lack of a theory should not preclude research nor publication. Advancing theory is undeniably valuable. Not all scholarly contributions, however, explicitly advance theory in ways that are recognized at the time they are written.

When a relevant theory or theories are available, follow-up questions might address how the theory is being engaged (cf. Slater & Gleason, 2012 ). Is the theory being directly tested in a way that is informative about the merits of the theory? How is the theory being advanced? Is a boundary condition being explored or the scope being extended? Merely using a theory to inform a topic can provide valuable direction and insights, but using theory is less likely to push the theory and its related propositions forward. Making a theoretical contribution involves actually advancing the theory itself ( Slater & Gleason, 2012 ).

We opened by opining that communication scholarship is consumed with theory and that contributing to theory is a priority of the discipline. To descriptively demonstrate this extent of this interest, we evaluated over 10,000 full text communication articles across 26 journals that were published in the last decade (see Markowitz et al., 2021 ), in search of how often they focus on five key theory-related terms ( theory , theories , theoretical , theoretical contribution , theoretical contributions ). The top panel of Figure 1 represents the percentage of papers within each year that mentioned at least one of the five terms related to theory. On average, 79.1% (8,320 of 10,517) of articles mentioned one theory-related term, with a relatively stable distribution over time (see the bottom panel of Figure 1 for a breakdown by journal). Of the 60,727 times that one of the five theory-related terms appeared in the sample, over half were related to the word theory alone (55.1%; 33,462/60,727). A thematic review of these cases revealed that theory is used in a variety of ways by communication researchers. The word is attached to specific social scientific theories (e.g., Construal Level Theory, Social Identity Theory), the term is used abstractly to feign the appearance of theory (e.g., “message processing theory,” “organizational communication theory”), the word theory serves as sign-posts in academic papers (e.g., “in the theory section above”), and finally, the term attempts to mark one’s contributions (e.g., “has several implications for theory and research on selective exposure”). 1 Together, the ubiquity of theory and theory-related terms, we believe, stems from and reflects expectations for publishing norms that value theory in the field of communication.

The rate of mentioning theory in communication science articles.

Our findings align with those of Slater and Gleason (2012) who examined articles in three elite communication journals in 2008–2009. They report that a sizable number of articles advanced theories in at least one of several ways. They reported, for example, that 54% of the articles they examined in Journal of Communication , Human Communication Research , and Communication Research addressed boundary conditions, 40% expanded a theories range of application, 22% advanced a mechanism, and 12% revised a theory. Alternatively, theoretical contributions, such as creating a new theory, comparing theories, and synthesizing across theories, were less common occurring in only 8% of articles combined.

We note, however, that mentioning at least one theory-related term does not mean that the work counts as contributing to theory. Of course, deeply theoretical work mentions theory, but so too do articles that engage in a practice that might be called theoretical name dropping . Our concern is that if work must invoke theory to pass the peer-review process, then exploratory and pre-theoretical work might mention a theory or otherwise invoke theory-related words to appear theoretical and thereby get published. In line with this concern, DeAndrea and Holbert (2017) found that the use of words in articles specifically related to theory evaluation were infrequent. In a sample of articles from four top journals between 2013 and 2015 ( Journal of Communication , Human Communication Research , Communication Research , Communication Monographs ), just less than one-third of them included at least one theory evaluation word, and at least half of those were evaluating method rather than theory.

Deciding what is truly theory and what is not requires defining theory. This is where our conversation becomes more complex.

Despite the ubiquity of researchers’ focus on theory in published communication scholarship ( Figure 1 ), any thoughtful discussion of theory is fraught from the start due to unavoidable definitional ambiguity. There is no one definition of communication theory, nor can there be, nor should there be. As Miller and Nicholson (1976) rightfully suggested, definitions are not by their nature things that are correct or incorrect. Although undeniably circular, words mean what people mean by them, and people use words differently. This is especially true of theory. No one scholar, nor do a collection of scholars, become the definitive authority or arbitrator on what theory is and what it is not.

Definitional diversity in conceptually constituting theory is intellectually rich. In modern intellectual thought, different specialties and perspectives are welcomed and valued. The alternatives to diversity in theory definitions are hegemony and the demise of academic freedom. Treasured intellectual diversity, however, comes at the cost of potential misunderstanding stemming from people using the same word to mean so many different things (e.g., see Bem, 2003 ). Valuing intellectual diversity also requires us to abandon rigidity in prescribing fixed rules of doing communication theory and research.

Although there can be no one universal definition of theory, we agree with DeAndrea and Holbert (2017) that regardless of approaches, scholars should strive for greater clarity in what they mean by theory and their theoretical contribution. Diversity in definitions should be expected, but clarity and the thoughtful explication of one’s approach to theory should also be expected in any social science.

The lack of a shared definition for theory puts communication scholars in a Catch-22. Communication scholars value theory and appreciate approaching theory with rigor and clarity. Communication scholars also value intellectual diversity, and valuing diverse perspectives and approaches prevents scholars from imposing their own views of theory on other scholars. We find that an “anything goes” approach to theory intellectually troubling, but we are equally disturbed by imposing views and perspectives on other scholars. While we do not see an easy way out of this conundrum, we see much value in acknowledging that it exists and being thoughtful about how we balance conflicting values.

When scholars define theory, perhaps the most notable dimension of variability for the word theory is narrowness-breadth. At the wide end of this continuum, theory is synonymous with being minimally conceptional. Explicating a construct with a conceptual definition could constitute theory under some of the more expansive uses of the term (cf. Slater & Gleason, 2012 ). Similarly, at the broad end of the continuum, theory can be synonymous with explanation. Efforts to answer “why” can count as theory. Sometimes, although we personally think this goes too far, simply adding the word theory to a topic or phenomenon (e.g., media theory, aggression theory, language theory) can pass as theory or at least provide the appearance of theory.

We prefer a much narrower use of the term, where theory can be considered a set of logically coherent and inter-related propositions or conjectures that (a) provide a unifying explanatory mechanism and (b) can be used to derive testable and falsifiable predictions . In this relatively narrow view, thinking conceptually or just explaining is not enough. Specifying a path model or set of mediated links might or might not count as theory. We note that some scholars may use the word theory even more restrictively, desiring to limit the term to formal axiomatic theories, and considering work to count as theoretical only if it conforms to a strict hypothetico-deductive depiction (or caricature) of science. Slater and Gleason (2012) provide a definition similar to ours. They see “the primary role of theory in communication science as the provision of explanation, of proposing causal processes, the explanation of ‘how’ and ‘under what circumstances’ in ways that result in empirically testable and falsifiable predictions” (p. 216).

The point here, however, is not to advocate for particular definition of theory but instead to argue that the efforts to impose a universal definition of theory is fundamentally misguided. Appreciation of theory requires recognition of the diversity of approaches to theory and a willingness to be respectful of approaches other than one’s own. The topic of theory needs to be approached with a cognizance of its diversity. Arguments about whose definition of theory is best will often be counterproductive. More constructive arguments will provide cogent reasons why an approach to defining theory is best for the intellectual endeavor to which it is applied.

Now that we have embraced the ambiguity inherent in defining theory, we next contemplate the necessity of theory. If we cannot provide a consensus definition of theory, then how can we demand or test it? Do (or would) we even know theory when we see it?

In our view, the necessity of theory varies according to the breadth of the term’s use. Being minimally conceptual is probably a prerequisite for making a scholarly contribution. After all, understanding what one is studying is typically either a prerequisite for, or a desired outcome of, advancing knowledge. If scholarly activities — such as concept explication, creating a new measure, description, observation, and hypothesis generation — indeed count (see Slater & Gleason, 2012 ), then requiring theory seems constructive.

One can imagine empirically documenting an effect or phenomenon whose explanation is not yet understood. While this might not count as a theoretical advancement under most uses of the term, it might nevertheless make a valuable contribution to knowledge. If nothing else, we typically need to know what needs explaining before we go about explaining it ( Rozin, 2001 ). Thus, disregarding the contribution of scholarship that is not “full-on” theory in some narrow sense is counterproductive to the advancement of knowledge.

Park et al. (2005) provide an instructive example. Their first study simply documents the existence of a strong finding. Unlike in the United States, Korean spam emails often contain an apology. What follows are five experiments testing various explanations before settling on a normative account. The work is not grounded in a specific theory, but it is clearly a systematic effort to document and explain a communication phenomenon. What if, however, they had packaged their studies as a series of articles rather than in one. Would this make the work any more or less theoretical?

One of the more controversial, meta-scientific questions in communication science is: Must we have theory? We answer “yes” in the broadest sense, as it helps to clarify our thinking about a topic. We also answer “no” in a narrower sense of theory. In explaining why not, we acknowledge that it would also always be better if we had at least one good theory than if we did not. Nevertheless, a well-articulated and relevant theory is not currently available for every conceivable topic or hypothesis worthy of investigation. It is not hard to imagine useful and enlightening scholarship that is neither formally engaged in theory building nor explicitly testing an existing theory. Simply put, if one is interested in a question or phenomenon where suitable theory is currently lacking, this ought not preclude research. Consequently, it follows that not all valuable scholarship requires theory in the narrow sense.

Which comes first, theory or data? The answer is it can be either, or the two can work together in an iterative, interactive, and abductive process ( Rozeboom, 2016 ). Different disciplines and specialties put a different emphasis on the primacy of theory in empirical research. Communication, on the one hand, sometimes views a strict hypothetico-deductive dogma as the ideal for formal theory testing, presupposing an existing formal theory from which to derive hypotheses. Computer science, on the other hand, is typically less strict in its placement or appreciation of theory in the research process. Quite often, computer scientists will obtain data, analyze them, and then identify the theory or theories that fit the findings as a final step. A communication scholar may scoff at this research process, though norms are powerful drivers of behavior ( Cialdini, 2006 ), and conventions related to theory are to be appreciated and scrutinized within the context of a discipline, specialty and even sub-specialty.

Building theory can be a purely logical process, but we are likely to develop more and better communication research if relevant data from exploratory research is available. Exploratory research, we contend, is not synonymous with being atheoretical. We tentatively define exploratory research as research guided by curiosity and seeking to document a finding or set of findings rather engaging in hypothetico-deductive hypothesis testing or focusing on explanation . We further note that not all hypothesis tests are theoretical. The logic behind hypotheses often takes the form of “others have found this, therefore we will too.” Such research falls in between more purely exploratory work and explicit theory testing where hypotheses follow from theory.

We contend that exploration is symbiotic with and often contributes to theory because it can highlight relationships that were unanticipated by theory, offering new hypotheses for future research. Even purely descriptive research can provide an understanding of the phenomena of interest, thereby providing a solid empirical foundation for conceptual construction. The placement of theory in the research process is not specifically a statement about the work’s value or rigor; it likely emphasizes the goals and norms of a particular research community. Consistent with our views on defining theory, we encourage our colleagues to be ecumenical in approaching theory-data time ordering.

An even more difficult question asks if all theories are equal. If some theories are indeed better than others, then what makes them so? Are there instances when no applicable theory is preferred to a misapplied or unreliable theory?

At the risk of diverting from our previous, more ecumenical perspective, we will tentatively take the position that some theories are indeed preferable to other theories—at least for certain applications—and along certain criteria of evaluation. For example, DeAndrea and Holbert (2017) expanded on Chaffee and Berger’s (1987) list of criteria for evaluating theory. Their refined list includes explanatory power, predictive power, parsimony, falsifiability, logical consistency, heuristic value, and organizing power. Building on this work, we further cautiously propose that theory can do more harm than good when it is misapplied, used haphazardly, or thrown at data to see if it sticks. If the goal of scholarship is the pursuit of knowledge and understanding, it seems possible that certain frames, stances, models, and understandings might be counterproductive or misguided.

From our perspective, a first consideration regarding the utility of theory is one of relevance. Does the sphere of application fall within the boundary conditions of the theory, or does the application involve interrogating the boundary conditions of the theory? If the answer to both questions is no, then the application is probably ill-advised on the grounds of relevance. Irrelevant theory distracts from empirical contributions. This is the theoretical equivalent of a red herring argument.

The second test is more difficult and involves a cost–benefit analysis of gains and losses in knowledge, insight, and understanding. Consistent with commentators such as Levine and McCornack (2014) , we envision evaluative dimensions, such as clarity, coherence, and verisimilitude, in assessing the scholarly value added by a theory. The more that a theory clarifies rather than clouds our understanding, the more valuable it is. Theory can bring order to otherwise unruly facts, findings, and ideas, or it can lead to logical inconsistencies, the latter obviously being less desirable. The insights offered by theories can align with known facts and findings or it can be contradicted by data and evidence ( Levine & McCornack, 2014 ).

In practice, assessing the alignment of theory with data is an especially thorny issue in quantitative, social scientific communication research. Not all scholarship strives to be empirical nor scientific, and theory-data alignment might not be the point in many scholarly endeavors. But when it is, theory-data alignment quickly becomes deeply problematic in the actual practice of communication scholarship, particularly when inferential statistics, and especially p -values, are involved ( Denworth, 2019 ).

One issue concerns “undead theories” ( Ferguson & Heene, 2012 ). It is not unusual in the social sciences for theoretical predictions to be soundly falsified, yet, nevertheless, applied despite their documented empirical deficiencies. Such theories are functionally sets of counterfactual conjectures that are passed off as good science. We anticipate that the reader will have their favorite undead theory, but we also anticipate that one scholar’s undead theory is another’s source of wisdom. Both can be true, which we appreciate, and will explain.

While the replication crisis in the social sciences has become an increasingly recognized issue ( Open Science Collaboration, 2015 ), it has also long been recognized that modern social science practices ensure that almost any hypothesis will receive mixed support regardless of its validity or verisimilitude ( Meehl, 1978 ). Essentially, the fact that the nil-null hypothesis is never literally true regardless of the soundness of the theory (Meehl’s crud factor), sub-optimal statistical power, questionable research practices such as p -hacking, and publication bias all combine to make the empirical merit of any claim murky at best ( Dienlin et al., 2021 ; Lewis, 2020 ; Markowitz et al., 2021 ). Accumulating more data over time often further muddies the water as mixed findings pile up and multiple citations can legitimately be provided in support of incompatible empirical claims. Not even meta-analysis is immune. As prior work shows ( Levine & Weber, 2020 ), regardless of the topic, findings in communication are heterogeneous, and the heterogeneity is seldom resolved by moderator analysis. In this way, meta-analytic results often document rather than resolve conclusions of mixed support for theoretical predictions. The net result is that a theory’s supporters and critics can both provide plenty of citations for why the theory is well supported and clearly falsified.

A common concern in academic research publishing is to articulate how one’s work makes a substantial theorical contribution ( DeAndrea & Holbert, 2017 ; Slater & Gleason, 2012 ). Articles in flagship, high-impact communication journals are often rejected if theoretical contributions are not substantial and clearly expressed. For example, the Journal of Communication suggests “Submissions are expected to present arguments that are theoretically sophisticated, conceptually meaningful, and methodologically sound” ( Journal of Communication, 2022 ). The words sophisticated and meaningful in their instructions for authors are subjective and elusive. Considering the subjective aspect of such appraisal, what does it mean to make a theoretical contribution?

Given that we have argued so far that defining theory is misguided, that formal theory is not necessary for all research endeavors, and that unequivocally establishing the empirical merit of theory is nearly impossible, one might expect an argument dismissing the very idea of theoretical contribution. A close read of what preceded, however, conveys several ways to make a theoretical contribution (cf. Slater & Gleason, 2012 ). Clarifying a conceptualization, providing an explanation, making or testing a prediction, testing theoretical boundary conditions, articulating a unifying framework integrating two or more seemly unrelated facts, and identifying a moderator that resolves previously unexplained heterogeneity can all count as theoretical contributions if done in a way to be conceptually coherent. One can seek to create new theory, pit existing theories against each other, or reconcile apparently conflicting theories. In our view, all such outcomes can offer new knowledge that conceptually builds on an existing foundation of empirical findings.

Critically, a theoretical contribution is different from discovering a new, statistically significant finding. Moving from empirical findings to theoretical contribution involves answering questions related to the mechanism underlying the finding. How does the finding fit within the larger nomological network of findings in the domain ( Cronbach & Meehl, 1955 )? What are the limits of the finding? How robust is it? How far can it be generalized? What are its moderators and antecedents? These questions, among many others, may help to position a finding better as a theoretical contribution instead of an empirical one-off result.

The most basic types of theoretical contributions are conceptualizing or explicating a new construct, reconceptualizing an existing construct, or providing a new explanation for an empirically documented effect. These types of contributions might be considered theoretical building blocks for subsequent theoretical development. Although these types of contributions may also be seen as just minimally theoretical, they are nevertheless important because other types of theoretical contributions require well explicated components and explanations. Coherent conceptual structures can lead to testable and falsifiable hypotheses about human communication and logically coherent networks of hypotheses can lead to formal theory.

A second approach to theoretical contribution involves variations on theory creation. Arguments for the desirability of a new theory will often take one of three forms. The first notes the absence of a relevant theory for a given topic or purpose. If no relevant theory exists and if theory is desired, then it follows that theory creation is needed. The second type of argument rests on making the case that existing, relevant theory is deficient, and the deficiencies are both sufficiently severe and intractable to justify a new theory as a rival. Third, prior theory can be accepted, but arguments are made that the new perspective offers additional insights that would not otherwise be gained.

Once a theory exists in the literature, it is often the goal of communication research to test, extend, modify, or apply a theory to improve our understanding of human communication. Each of these (testing, extending, modifying, or applying) moves communication theory forward. We note, however, that at least for scientific research, testing should typically precede the other forms of contribution to ensure theoretical adequacy prior to extension or application.

Many discussions of theoretical contributions will involve value judgments regarding theoretical bandwidth. Discussions of theoretical bandwidth, in turn, may deal with two qualitatively different issues. The first relates to how theory is defined. One might think of explicating a construct as a narrower contribution than explaining the relationship between two explicated constructs. Explaining how a well-understood effect fits with a network of documented effects is broader still.

Second, communication theories vary widely in their topical scope and boundary conditions. Communication theories might focus on a particular topic or phenomenon, others on a broader domain or function, and others still might be general theories of communication. Further, regardless of topical breadth, boundary conditions can vary. Communication theories, for example, might be limited to a particular age group, point in time, media, or culture.

It is likely tempting to equate theoretical bandwidth and theoretical contribution under the likely tacit presumption that more is better. While surely there are knowledge-gain advantages to breadth, any firm link between breadth and contribution is qualified by all other things being equal. Surely contribution is more closely tied to how well a theoretical goal is accomplished than to how ambitious the goal is (cf., DeAndrea & Holbert, 2017 ).

Rather than reviewing the extensive literature on the value of theory, we focus here on two benefits of theory that we believe are highlighted less frequently but are no less important.

Generality and external validity

Perhaps the most underappreciated benefit of theory is that it can provide satisfying answers to questions of generality in ways that data simply cannot. Theory is a better approach to achieving external validity than research design.

We have all seen data collected on college students and wondered if the findings might apply to working adults. We all likely agree that for most topics, a nationally representative sample is preferable to a sample of college students (though, see Coppock et al., 2018 ). Nevertheless, we might still wonder that if the data were collected at a different point in time, or if the questions were worded a bit differently, or perhaps presented in a different order, would the findings be the same? These sorts of questions cannot be answered with data because we can never sample everyone everywhere over all times in all possible ways. No matter how much data we have, data are finite, and representative sampling and inferential statistics do not change this uncomfortable truth.

Fortunately, theory provides an elegant solution. Theoretical claims specify what is expected under what conditions. Theory, and more precisely its boundary conditions, provide us with statements of the extent of generality. As described by Mook (1983) , we specify generality theoretically, then we test and validate claims of generality with data. Rather than fretting over the sampling of participants, multiple message instantiations, multiple situations, and a host of other study-specific idiosyncrasies, we use theory to make generalizations and data to test those generalizations ( Ewoldsen, 2022 ). We could ask if a theory applies to non-WEIRD cultures, and then test core claims with a non-WEIRD culture ( Henrich et al., 2010 ; Many Labs 2, 2018 ).

Theory as agenda setting

A second underappreciated function of theory is research agenda setting. Just as the media might tell us which news topics and frames are important, so too does theory tell us what we need to study, how to study it, and what to expect. It is not unusual for new researchers to struggle with topic selection. Theory provides a straight-forward way to come up with a hypothesis and an approach to testing it. This topic selection approach can also be flipped. We can ask, what if a theory was wrong? How might we show that? A research design should flow from these questions.

Theory offers an even more important agenda setting function. As Berlo (1960) famously identified when defining communication as process, a wide variety of forces can affect how communication unfolds. Regardless of the specific topic or focus, the potentially important considerations are numerous. Theory tells us what is most important and what is less important. In other words, theory tells us what to prioritize.

We are more pleased than not with the current state of communication theory as its progress is undeniable. There was a time when the lack of communication theory was bemoaned and when most theories were taken from other disciplines (see Berger, 1991 ). Our perception of the current literature, formed by our lived experience across decades of publishing and reading communication scholarship, is that the number of communication theories and theoretical ideas have grown, and the communication trade deposit with related fields has diminished. The latter point, of course, deserves a strict empirical evaluation to test how communication and other social sciences share ideas and theories.

As the reader has surely noticed, we have approached this article from a particular perspective. The present authors have a quantitative and social scientific approach to communication scholarship. A consequence of originating from this scholarly tradition is that our commentary is better targeted for research publishing in outlets such as Human Communication Research than outlets like Communication, Culture, & Critique . Both are worthy outlets, but they have different orientations and conventions.

Like most communication scholars, we are theory advocates. We use, have written our own, and made contributions to theory on a range of topics relevant to human communication. While we ascribe to the idea that “there is nothing so practical as a good theory” ( Lewin, 1951 , p. 169), blind allegiance to theory is ill-advised. Theories, we believe, must have testable and falsifiable components to them. We encourage our fellow communication scholars to “follow the data.” Moving science forward requires theoretical predictions that hold up to data over time.

Replications play an increasingly important role in theory testing, but also add a final set of complications to address. Theory and evidence can misalign for several reasons, and it is usually unclear why a test failed. Perhaps some critical aspect of the research setting was different, producing an unexpected result. A moderating variable may have impacted the results, such that the findings do not invalidate the theory, but instead provides a nuanced understanding of the conditions that led to a particular effect and those that did not (or led to the opposite effect). Theory should be a guidepost for empirical research, not gospel, upon considering the results. Of course, theory and data can also misalign because the theory is mis-specified. In practice, it can be difficult to discern valid support from false positives and mis-specified predictions from a methodological artifact or undetected moderators. Nevertheless, we envision a future where replication is both more prevalent and more valued.

Communication is an eclectic discipline, and science is not the only method for understanding communication. Further, we as a field draw on and adopt ideas from different fields, authors publish in journals outside of communication research, and there is no singular approach to the same research question. We encourage authors to continue this tolerance and flexibility with exploratory and “pre-theory” work as well. As mentioned, there are times when a good theory simply does not fit one’s phenomenon of interest. Communication scholars should not be faced with a “square peg, round hole” problem just to satisfy reviewers who demand more theory. One can try to fit a square peg into a round hole with enough force, but it will not fit well and there may be important consequences because of this exercise (e.g., theory–data misalignment). Exploratory work should be considered and applauded when we simply do not know how concepts will relate to each other. Proposing a research question instead of hypotheses derived from theory is not an admission of a research study being atheoretical, but instead, an admission of one’s curiosity and uncertainty. Thus, we envision a future where exploratory and descriptive work is more prevalent and more appreciated.

It is also important for authors to think about and explicitly communicate the role of theory in their research. This article has noted the many functions that theory can serve; yet, these functions are often assumed or implied in a manuscript when they could be made explicit. Being forthcoming about the role of theory in one’s research will lead to conceptual and contribution-related clarity. This will lead to less superficial applications of theory (e.g., theoretical name dropping ) and toward more conceptual richness. If communication research is to value theory—and we undoubtedly think it should—then theory should be used appropriately. Theories are built on a foundation of empirical evidence, collected over time allowing researchers to draw nuanced conclusions and make subsequent predictions about human communication. Using the term theory to sound more scientific, rigorous, or grounded is gratuitous and should be avoided. Consequently, we envision a future where communication theory, in form and function, is used more thoughtfully and transparently.

Finally, we are encouraged that all major communication research journals have a large focus on theory in their articles (e.g., at least 50% of articles in each journal mention theory in some manner; Figure 1 ). However, the degree to which the published communication literature is advancing theory in consequential ways or settings is unclear ( DeAndrea & Holbert, 2017 ). We encourage scholars to be flexible with their assumptions about a theory, testing it in ways that might be unconventional and creative in the pursuit of new knowledge. To this end, null effects are still informative ( Francis, 2012 ; Levine, 2013 ), especially if a study is adequately powered. For example, understanding what leads to null effects might be helpful for the development of boundary conditions of theory. Null effects are difficult to publish, but communication research can lead in their normalization in the pursuit of greater theoretical precision and explication. Thus, we envision a future where researchers are more frank about empirical support, and more precise with predictions.

Data related to Figure 1 can be retrieved from Markowitz et al. (2021) or by contacting David M. Markowitz.

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

The authors also report no conflicts of interest with the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

A systematic, qualitative review of how theory terms were used across the entire sample is beyond the scope of this commentary. We used these data to descriptively demonstrate how theory is prevalent in communication research, and used as a means to achieve different ends.

Bem D. ( 2003 ). Writing the empirical journal article. In Darley J. M. , Zanna M. P. (Eds.), The complete academic: A practical guide for the beginning social scientist (2nd ed.). (pp. 185–219). American Psychological Association .

Google Scholar

Google Preview

Berger C. R. ( 1991 ). Communication theories and other curios . Communication Monographs , 58 ( 1 ), 101 – 113 . https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759109376216

Berlo D. K. ( 1960 ). The process of communication: An introduction to theory and practice . Holt, Rinehart and Winston .

Chaffee S. H. , Berger C. R. ( 1987 ). What communication scientists do. In Berger C. R. , Chaffee S. H. (Eds.), Handbook of Communication Science (pp. 99 – 122 ). Sage .

Cialdini R. B. ( 2006 ). Influence: The psychology of persuasion . Harper Business .

Coppock A. , Leeper T. J. , Mullinix K. J. ( 2018 ). Generalizability of heterogeneous treatment effect estimates across samples . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 115 ( 49 ), 12441 – 12446 . https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1808083115

Cronbach L. J. , Meehl P. E. ( 1955 ). Construct validity in psychological tests . Psychological Bulletin , 52 ( 4 ), 281 – 302 . https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040957

Denworth L. ( 2019 ). The significant problem of p-values . Scientific American . https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican1019-62

DeAndrea D. C. , Holbert L. R. ( 2017 ) Increasing clarity where it is needed most: Articulating and evaluating theoretical contributions . Annals of the International Communication Association , 41 ( 2 ), 168 – 180 . https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2017.1304163

Dienlin T. , Johannes N. , Bowman N. D. , Masur P. K. , Engesser S. , Kümpel A. S. , Lukito J. , Bier L. M. , Zhang R. , Johnson B. K. , Huskey R. , Schneider F. M. , Breuer J. , Parry D. A. , Vermeulen I. , Fisher J. T. , Banks J. , Weber R. , Ellis D. A. , de Vreese C. ( 2021 ). An agenda for open science in communication . Journal of Communication , 71 ( 1 ), 1 – 26 . https://doi.org/10.1093/JOC/JQZ052

Ewoldsen D. R. ( 2022 ). A discussion of falsifiability and evaluating research: Issues of variance accounted for and external validity . Asian Communication Research , 19 ( 2 ), 5 – 14 . https://doi.org/10.20879/acr.2022.19.2.5

Ferguson C. J. , Heene M. ( 2012 ). A vast graveyard of undead theories: Publication bias and psychological science’s aversion to the null . Perspectives on Psychological Science , 7 ( 6 ), 555 – 561 . https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612459059

Francis G. ( 2012 ). Publication bias and the failure of replication in experimental psychology . Psychonomic Bulletin & Review , 19 ( 6 ), 975 – 991 . https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-012-0322-y

Henrich J. , Heine S. J. , Norenzayan A. ( 2010 ). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences , 33 ( 2–3 ), 61 – 83 . https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999152X

Journal of Communication . ( 2022 ). Author instructions . Oxford Academic . https://academic.oup.com/joc/pages/General_Instructions

Levine T. R. ( 2013 ). A defense of publishing nonsignificant (ns) results . Communication Research Reports , 30 ( 3 ), 270 – 274 . https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2013.806261

Levine T. R. , McCornack S. A. ( 2014 ). Theorizing about deception . Journal of Language and Social Psychology , 33 ( 4 ), 431 – 440 . https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927x14536397

Levine T. R. , Weber R. ( 2020 ). Unresolved heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Combined construct invalidity, confounding, and other challenges to understanding mean effect sizes . Human Communication Research , 46 ( 2–3 ), 343 – 354 . https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqz019

Lewin K. ( 1951 ). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers . Harper & Brothers . https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1951-06769-000

Lewis N. A. ( 2020 ). Open communication science: A primer on why and some recommendations for how . Communication Methods and Measures , 14 ( 2 ), 71 – 82 . https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2019.1685660

Many Labs 2 . ( 2018 ). Many Labs 2: Investigating variation in replicability across samples and settings . Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science , 1 ( 4 ), 443 – 490 . https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918810

Markowitz D. M. , Song H. , Taylor S. H. ( 2021 ). Tracing the adoption and effects of open science in communication research . Journal of Communication , 71 ( 5 ), 739 – 763 . https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqab030

Meehl P. E. ( 1978 ). Theoretical risks and tabular asterisks: Sir Karl, Sir Ronald, and the slow progress of soft psychology . Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology , 46 ( 4 ), 806 – 834 . https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.46.4.806

Miller G. R. , Nicholson H. E. ( 1976 ). Communication inquiry: A perspective on a process . Addison-Wesley Pub. Co .

Mook D. G. ( 1983 ). In defense of external invalidity . American Psychologist , 38 ( 4 ), 379 – 387 . https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.38.4.379

Park H. S. , Lee H. E. , Song J. A. ( 2005 ). “ I am sorry to send you spam” Cross-cultural difference in email advertising in Korea and the US . Human Communication Research , 31 ( 3 ), 365 – 398 , https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2005.tb00876.x

Open Science Collaboration . ( 2015 ). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science . Science , 349 ( 6251 ), aac4716. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716

Rozeboom W. W. ( 2016 ). Good science is abductive, not hypothetico-deductive. In Harlow L. L. , Mulaik S. A. , Steiger J. H. (Eds.), What if there were no significance tests? (pp. 335–391). Routledge .

Rozin P. ( 2001 ). Social psychology and science: Some lessons from Solomon Asch . Personality and Social Psychology Review , 5 ( 1 ), 2 – 14 . https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0501_1

Slater M. D. , Gleason L. S. ( 2012 ). Contributing to theory and knowledge in quantitative communication science . Communication Methods and Measures , 6 ( 4 ), 215 – 236 . https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2012.732626

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

Recommend to Your Librarian
Advertising and Corporate Services

Affiliations

Online ISSN 1468-2958
About Oxford Academic
Publish journals with us
University press partners
What we publish
New features
Open access
Institutional account management
Rights and permissions
Get help with access
Accessibility
Advertising
Media enquiries
Oxford University Press
Oxford Languages
University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

Cookie settings
Cookie policy
Privacy policy
Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

View all journals
Explore content
About the journal
Publish with us
Sign up for alerts
CORRESPONDENCE
02 April 2024

Adopt universal standards for study adaptation to boost health, education and social-science research

Dragos Iliescu 0 &
Samuel Greiff 1

University of Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania.

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Goethe-University Frankfurt, Germany.

Research in health, education and social sciences cannot rely on the same measurement precision as that in the natural sciences, because it is based on reports and recordings of what people think, say or do. This generates issues of comparability and validity that are exacerbated by the need to adapt studies to different contexts and target populations.

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

$29.99 / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

$199.00 per year

only $3.90 per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Nature 628 , 36 (2024)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00970-4

Competing Interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

See more letters to the editor

Research data
Research management
Public health

How AI is being used to accelerate clinical trials

Nature Index 13 MAR 24

A guide to the Nature Index

A spotlight on the stark imbalances of global health research

How can we make PhD training fit for the modern world? Broaden its philosophical foundations

Correspondence 02 APR 24

Allow researchers with caring responsibilities ‘promotion pauses’ to make research more equitable

Africa’s postdoc workforce is on the rise — but at what cost?

Career Feature 02 APR 24

Is IVF at risk in the US? Scientists fear for the fertility treatment’s future

News 02 APR 24

Overcoming low vision to prove my abilities under pressure

Career Q&A 28 MAR 24

Postdoctoral Associate- Cell Biology

Houston, Texas (US)

Baylor College of Medicine (BCM)

Head of ClinicalTrials.gov

National Institutes of Health (NIH) National Library of Medicine (NLM) National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) Information Engineering...

Washington D.C. (US)

National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information

POSTDOCTORAL FELLOWSHIP IN SYSTEMS BIOLOGY: PRECISION VACCINE PROGRAM (PVP) - BOSTON CHILDREN'

The Data Management and Analysis Core (DMAC) within the Precision Vaccine Program (PVP) at Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School (H...

Boston, Massachusetts

Boston Children's Hospital - Department of Pediatrics

2024 Recruitment notice Shenzhen Institute of Synthetic Biology: Shenzhen, China

The wide-ranging expertise drawing from technical, engineering or science professions...

Shenzhen,China

Shenzhen Institute of Synthetic Biology

Global Talent Recruitment (Scientist Positions)

Global Talent Gathering for Innovation, Changping Laboratory Recruiting Overseas High-Level Talents.

Beijing, China

Changping Laboratory

Quick links

Explore articles by subject
Guide to authors
Editorial policies

SUGGESTED TOPICS
The Magazine
Newsletters
Managing Yourself
Managing Teams
Work-life Balance
The Big Idea
Data & Visuals
Reading Lists
Case Selections
HBR Learning
Topic Feeds
Account Settings
Email Preferences

Research Roundup: How the Pandemic Changed Management

Mark C. Bolino,
Jacob M. Whitney,
Sarah E. Henry

Lessons from 69 articles published in top management and applied psychology journals.

Researchers recently reviewed 69 articles focused on the management implications of the Covid-19 pandemic that were published between March 2020 and July 2023 in top journals in management and applied psychology. The review highlights the numerous ways in which employees, teams, leaders, organizations, and societies were impacted and offers lessons for managing through future pandemics or other events of mass disruption.

The recent pandemic disrupted life as we know it, including for employees and organizations around the world. To understand such changes, we recently reviewed 69 articles focused on the management implications of the Covid-19 pandemic. These papers were published between March 2020 and July 2023 in top journals in management and applied psychology.

Mark C. Bolino is the David L. Boren Professor and the Michael F. Price Chair in International Business at the University of Oklahoma’s Price College of Business. His research focuses on understanding how an organization can inspire its employees to go the extra mile without compromising their personal well-being.
JW Jacob M. Whitney is a doctoral candidate in management at the University of Oklahoma’s Price College of Business and an incoming assistant professor at Kennesaw State University. His research interests include leadership, teams, and organizational citizenship behavior.
SH Sarah E. Henry is a doctoral candidate in management at the University of Oklahoma’s Price College of Business and an incoming assistant professor at the University of South Florida. Her research interests include organizational citizenship behaviors, workplace interpersonal dynamics, and international management.

Partner Center

Some people may see more images per second than others, study finds

New research suggests humans perceive visuals at widely different time frames, by rae hodge.

People perceive visual information at different speeds and some people effectively see more images per second than others, according to new research from Trinity College Dublin. In a study published Monday in the journal PLOS ONE , researchers found that if a light source flickers above the limit of how many images per second a person could perceive, the person will not perceive the light source as flickering at all. To discover the maximum number of images per second each study participant could perceive, scientists measured each person's “critical flicker fusion threshold.” Some people perceived a light to be completely still even when it flickered about 35 times per second, but other participants could still detect the rate of a light flickering even when it was flashing more than 60 times per second.

“We don’t yet know how this variation in visual temporal resolution might affect our day-to-day lives, but we believe that individual differences in perception speed might become apparent in high-speed situations where one might need to locate or track fast-moving objects, such as in ball sports, or in situations where visual scenes change rapidly, such as in competitive gaming,” said lead study author Clinton Haarlem, a PhD candidate at Trinity's School of Natural Sciences, in a Monday release.

Researchers said that while this individual level of visual acuity — called "temporal resolution" — may remain quite stable in general for a person, the researchers' post-hoc analysis suggests there may be slightly more changes over time for female study subjects than for male subjects.

How to Publish a Research Article

Submit your Research
My Submissions
Article Guidelines
Article Guidelines (New Versions)
Data Guidelines
Article Processing Charges
Finding Article Reviewers
The Peer Review Process
The Editorial Team’s Role
Reviewer Criteria
Dos and Don’ts for Suggesting Reviewers
Hints and Tips for Finding Reviewers
The work is original. The article (or substantial parts of it) must not have been published previously, or be under consideration or review by another journal. Articles previously posted on a preprint server, such as arXiv, SSRN, BioRxiv, MedRxiv can be submitted for publication in Open Research Europe.
At least one author must have or previously had Horizon 2020 funding (for details, see our Publication criteria ).
The reported study meets all applicable research and publication standards . We strongly recommend that you consult our editorial policies for more detail on reporting guidelines and ethical requirements.
Where applicable, all methodological details and relevant data are made available to allow others to replicate the study, and that the article adheres to appropriate reporting guidelines and community standards. For more detail, please see our policies and Data preparation guidelines .
All authors have understood MedEdPublish’s policies for article publication and its author-led publishing model , which requires authors to actively suggest suitable peer reviewers for their article until at least 2 reviews have been received.
Your article includes full author and affiliation information, and a conflict of interest statement.
ORCID allows identification beyond names. Globally, names can be very common, they can change, they can be transliterated into other alphabets and so reliably linking researchers with their research and organizations can be difficult - this is solved through a unique ORCID iD.
An ORCID iD also allows you to keep a constantly updated digital curriculum vitae. Individuals decide to register, which research activities to connect to their ID, which organizations to allow access, what information to make publicly available, what to share with trusted parties, and what to keep private. Individuals can control their profiles and can change these settings and permissions at any time.

Stay Informed

We'll keep you updated on any major new updates to MedEdPublish

The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000.

You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password.

To sign in, please click here .

If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here .

You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password.

If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here .

If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password.

If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance.

Retraction Note: International trade and environmental pollution in sub-Saharan Africa: do exports and imports matter?

Retraction Note
Open access
Published: 02 April 2024

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

Emmanuel Duodu ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4988-2043 1 &
Desmond Mbe-Nyire Mpuure ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1425-1604 1

The Original Article was published on 28 February 2023

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Retraction Note: Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:53204-53220

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-26086-2

The Publisher has retracted this article in agreement with the Editor-in-Chief. An investigation by the Publisher found a number of articles, including this one, with a number of concerns, including but not limited to compromised peer-review process, inappropriate or irrelevant references, containing nonstandard phrases or not being in scope of the journal. Based on the investigation's findings the Publisher, in consultation with the Editor-in-Chief, therefore no longer has confidence in the results and conclusions of this article.

The authors have not stated whether they agree or disagree to this retraction.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Fundamentals of Economic Analysis, University of Alicante, Sant Vicent del Raspeig, Spain

Emmanuel Duodu & Desmond Mbe-Nyire Mpuure

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emmanuel Duodu .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

About this article

Duodu, E., Mpuure, D.MN. Retraction Note: International trade and environmental pollution in sub-Saharan Africa: do exports and imports matter?. Environ Sci Pollut Res (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-024-33137-9

Download citation

Published : 02 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-024-33137-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Find a journal
Publish with us
Track your research

IMAGES

(PDF) HOW TO PUBLISH A RESEARCH ARTICLE
5 Tips for how to publish a research paper
How To Publish Research Paper
Publication Guide for Submit your Research Paper, evaluating research
How to easily publish a research paper in journals 2023
How to Publish a Research Paper in Reputed Journals?

VIDEO

How to publish a research paper
How to publish your research paper in a peer
Online Workshop on Research Paper Writing & Publishing Day 1
Online Workshop on Research Paper Writing & Publishing Day 2
How to submit a research article to a journal?
How to Do Research and Get Published

COMMENTS

Publish with Elsevier: Step by step
Now that your article is published, you can promote it to achieve a bigger impact for your research. Sharing research, accomplishments and ambitions with a wider audience makes you more visible in your field. This helps you get cited more, enabling you to cultivate a stronger reputation, promote your research and move forward in your career.
How to publish your research
Step 1: Choosing a journal. Choosing which journal to publish your research paper in is one of the most significant decisions you have to make as a researcher. Where you decide to submit your work can make a big difference to the reach and impact your research has. It's important to take your time to consider your options carefully and ...
How to Publish a Research Paper: Your Step-by-Step Guide
3. Submit your article according to the journal's submission guidelines. Go to the "author's guide" (or similar) on the journal's website to review its submission requirements. Once you are satisfied that your paper meets all of the guidelines, submit the paper through the appropriate channels.
Successful Scientific Writing and Publishing: A Step-by-Step Approach
Sections of an Original Research Article. Original research articles make up most of the peer-reviewed literature (), follow a standardized format, and are the focus of this article.The 4 main sections are the introduction, methods, results, and discussion, sometimes referred to by the initialism, IMRAD.
7 steps to publishing in a scientific journal
Sun and Linton (2014), Hierons (2016) and Craig (2010) offer useful discussions on the subject of "desk rejections.". 4. Make a good first impression with your title and abstract. The title and abstract are incredibly important components of a manuscript as they are the first elements a journal editor sees.
How to publish an article?
Production. - Copy editing and language polishing. - Data processing and type setting. - Article Tracking. - Checking your article: proofing procedure. - e.Proofing - Makes editing easy! Read more. Publication. - Publishing your article "Online First".
How to Write and Publish a Research Paper for a Peer ...
Communicating research findings is an essential step in the research process. Often, peer-reviewed journals are the forum for such communication, yet many researchers are never taught how to write a publishable scientific paper. In this article, we explain the basic structure of a scientific paper and describe the information that should be included in each section. We also identify common ...
Writing for publication: Structure, form, content, and journal
This article provides an overview of writing for publication in peer-reviewed journals. While the main focus is on writing a research article, it also provides guidance on factors influencing journal selection, including journal scope, intended audience for the findings, open access requirements, and journal citation metrics.
Publishing in a scholarly journal: Part one, the publishing process
Open access is a publishing model in which the author pays a fee to publish; the reader is able to access the article for free. Some journals are entirely open access, while others are "hybrid"—providing both a subscription as well as an open access publishing option. Open science, on the other hand, is a movement towards increased ...
PDF How to write and publish a paper
impact of published research. • As electronic dissemination of scholarly content has surpassed print, it has become easier to disaggregate an individual article's impact from the publication in which it appeared. • It's also possible to track different markers of an article's reach, beyond just citations.
How to Write and Publish a Research Paper for a Peer-Reviewed Journal
The introduction section should be approximately three to five paragraphs in length. Look at examples from your target journal to decide the appropriate length. This section should include the elements shown in Fig. 1. Begin with a general context, narrowing to the specific focus of the paper.
Preparing and Publishing a Scientific Manuscript
B ACKGROUND. The publication of original research in a peer-reviewed and indexed journal is the ultimate and most important step toward the recognition of any scientific work.However, the process starts long before the write-up of a manuscript. The journal in which the author wishes to publish his/her work should be chosen at the time of conceptualization of the scientific work based on the ...
How to Publish a Research Paper
To Publish a Research Paper follow the guide below: Conduct original research: Conduct thorough research on a specific topic or problem. Collect data, analyze it, and draw conclusions based on your findings. Write the paper: Write a detailed paper describing your research.
How To Write And Publish A Scientific Manuscript
Develop a research question. Perform a literature search. Identify a gap in the literature. Design a study protocol (including personnel) Submit to an institutional review board for approval. Collect, responsibly store, and then analyze data. Write a manuscript to interpret and describe your research.
How do I publish my article with Elsevier?
Select ' Submit your article ' on the homepage of the journal you would like to publish in. This option may not always be available as some journals do not accept submissions. Sign in to Editorial Manager, or register if you are a first-time user. Follow the steps to submit your article. After submitting your article, use the reference number ...
Author Services
Research your publishing options. Take the time to explore the journals in your field, to choose the best fit for your research. Find a journal that serves the audience you're trying to reach, and whose aims and scope match your approach. You might also have choices to make about different publishing options, including open access.
Publish Your Research Articles
Submit your Research. Articles are published rapidly as soon as they are accepted, after passing a series of prepublication checks to assess originality, readability, author eligibility, and compliance with Routledge Open Research's policies and ethical guidelines. Peer review by invited experts, suggested by the authors, takes place openly ...
Publish Your Research Articles
Articles are published rapidly as soon as they are accepted, after passing a series of prepublication checks to assess originality, readability, author eligibility, and compliance with Open Research Central's policies and ethical guidelines. Peer review by invited experts, suggested by the authors, takes place openly after publication.
Publish Your Research Articles
Articles. Articles are published rapidly as soon as they are accepted, after passing a series of prepublication checks to assess originality, readability, author eligibility, and compliance with Gates Open Research's policies and ethical guidelines. Peer review by invited experts, suggested by the authors, takes place openly after publication.
(PDF) How to Write and Publish a Research Article
and write the key findings of published liter ature. The purpose of this is to s how. the novelty of your work. It is necessary to cite all research/conference artic les. in text that are included ...
(Pdf) How to Publish a Research Article
Abstract. the abstract in any scientific research publication should brief and straight forward. The abstract must emphasize the key findings of the work and its general significance. The abstract ...
Publish Your Research Articles
Submit your Research. Articles are published rapidly as soon as they are accepted, after passing a series of prepublication checks to assess originality, readability, author eligibility, and compliance with Wellcome Open Research's policies and ethical guidelines. Peer review by invited experts, suggested by the authors, takes place openly ...
role of theory in researching and understanding human communication
A common concern in academic research publishing is to articulate how one's work makes a substantial theorical contribution (DeAndrea & Holbert, 2017; Slater & Gleason, 2012). Articles in flagship, high-impact communication journals are often rejected if theoretical contributions are not substantial and clearly expressed.
Adopt universal standards for study adaptation to boost health ...
Research in health, education and social sciences cannot rely on the same measurement precision as that in the natural sciences, because it is based on reports and recordings of what people think ...
Research Roundup: How the Pandemic Changed Management
Summary. Researchers recently reviewed 69 articles focused on the management implications of the Covid-19 pandemic that were published between March 2020 and July 2023 in top journals in ...
Some people may see more images per second than others, study finds
In a study published Monday in the journal PLOS ONE, researchers found that if a light source flickers above the limit of how many images per second a person could perceive, the person will not ...
PDF arXiv:2403.20329v1 [cs.CL] 29 Mar 2024
Transactions on Machine Learning Research. Yang Xu, Yiheng Xu, Tengchao Lv, Lei Cui, Furu Wei, Guoxin Wang, Yijuan Lu, Dinei Florencio, Cha Zhang, Wanxiang Che, Min Zhang, and Lidong Zhou. 2021.LayoutLMv2: Multi-modal pre-training for visually-rich document understanding. In Proceed-ings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for
Publish Your Research Articles
Submit your Research. Articles are published rapidly as soon as they are accepted, after passing a series of prepublication checks to assess originality, readability, author eligibility, and compliance with MedEdPublish's policies and ethical guidelines. Peer review by invited experts, suggested by the authors, takes place openly after ...
Retraction Note: International trade and environmental ...
The Publisher has retracted this article in agreement with the Editor-in-Chief. An investigation by the Publisher found a number of articles, including this one, with a number of concerns, including but not limited to compromised peer-review process, inappropriate or irrelevant references, containing nonstandard phrases or not being in scope of the journal.

How to Write and Publish Your Research in a Journal

Choosing a Journal

Things You Should Know

Expert Q&A

About This Article

Reader Success Stories

Did this article help you?

Featured Articles

Trending Articles

Watch Articles

How to publish an article? – Step by step

1. Before you start

2. Turning your manuscript into an article

3. After publication

How to Publish a Research Paper – Step by Step Guide

How to Publish a Research Paper

How to Choose Journal for Research Paper Publication

List of Journals for Research Paper Publications

List of Conferences for Research Paper Publications

How to Publish a Research Paper in Journal

How to Publish a Research Paper for Students

How to Publish a Research Paper for Free

Journals and Conferences for Free Research Paper publications

Importance of Research Paper Publication

Advantages of Research Paper Publication

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

You may also like

How to Cite Research Paper – All Formats and...

Delimitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Research Paper Format – Types, Examples and...

Research Design – Types, Methods and Examples

Research Paper Title – Writing Guide and Example

Research Paper Introduction – Writing Guide and...

StatPearls [Internet].

Affiliations

In this Page

Related information

Similar articles in PubMed

Recent Activity

ScienceDirect Support Center

How do I publish my article with Elsevier?

Helpful tools and pages

Finding the right journal

Help with submitting and tracking your article

Was this answer helpful?

Related Articles:

How to Publish a Research Article

Stay Informed

How to Publish a Research Article

How to Publish a Research Article

Are you a Gates-funded researcher?

How to Publish a Research Article

Are you a Wellcome-funded researcher?

Article Contents

The role of theory in researching and understanding human communication

Generality and external validity

Theory as agenda setting

Email alerts

Affiliations

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Adopt universal standards for study adaptation to boost health, education and social-science research

Access options

Competing Interests

Related Articles

Postdoctoral Associate- Cell Biology

Head of ClinicalTrials.gov

POSTDOCTORAL FELLOWSHIP IN SYSTEMS BIOLOGY: PRECISION VACCINE PROGRAM (PVP) - BOSTON CHILDREN'

2024 Recruitment notice Shenzhen Institute of Synthetic Biology: Shenzhen, China

Global Talent Recruitment (Scientist Positions)

Quick links

Research Roundup: How the Pandemic Changed Management

Partner Center

Some people may see more images per second than others, study finds

How to Publish a Research Article

Stay Informed

Retraction Note: International trade and environmental pollution in sub-Saharan Africa: do exports and imports matter?

Cite this article

Author information

Corresponding author