How to Write a Conclusion for Research Papers (with Examples)

How to Write a Conclusion for Research Papers (with Examples)

The conclusion of a research paper is a crucial section that plays a significant role in the overall impact and effectiveness of your research paper. However, this is also the section that typically receives less attention compared to the introduction and the body of the paper. The conclusion serves to provide a concise summary of the key findings, their significance, their implications, and a sense of closure to the study. Discussing how can the findings be applied in real-world scenarios or inform policy, practice, or decision-making is especially valuable to practitioners and policymakers. The research paper conclusion also provides researchers with clear insights and valuable information for their own work, which they can then build on and contribute to the advancement of knowledge in the field.

The research paper conclusion should explain the significance of your findings within the broader context of your field. It restates how your results contribute to the existing body of knowledge and whether they confirm or challenge existing theories or hypotheses. Also, by identifying unanswered questions or areas requiring further investigation, your awareness of the broader research landscape can be demonstrated.

Remember to tailor the research paper conclusion to the specific needs and interests of your intended audience, which may include researchers, practitioners, policymakers, or a combination of these.

Table of Contents

What is a conclusion in a research paper, summarizing conclusion, editorial conclusion, externalizing conclusion, importance of a good research paper conclusion, how to write a conclusion for your research paper, research paper conclusion examples, frequently asked questions.

A conclusion in a research paper is the final section where you summarize and wrap up your research, presenting the key findings and insights derived from your study. The research paper conclusion is not the place to introduce new information or data that was not discussed in the main body of the paper. When working on how to conclude a research paper, remember to stick to summarizing and interpreting existing content. The research paper conclusion serves the following purposes: 1

  • Warn readers of the possible consequences of not attending to the problem.
  • Recommend specific course(s) of action.
  • Restate key ideas to drive home the ultimate point of your research paper.
  • Provide a “take-home” message that you want the readers to remember about your study.

summary of correction in research

Types of conclusions for research papers

In research papers, the conclusion provides closure to the reader. The type of research paper conclusion you choose depends on the nature of your study, your goals, and your target audience. I provide you with three common types of conclusions:

A summarizing conclusion is the most common type of conclusion in research papers. It involves summarizing the main points, reiterating the research question, and restating the significance of the findings. This common type of research paper conclusion is used across different disciplines.

An editorial conclusion is less common but can be used in research papers that are focused on proposing or advocating for a particular viewpoint or policy. It involves presenting a strong editorial or opinion based on the research findings and offering recommendations or calls to action.

An externalizing conclusion is a type of conclusion that extends the research beyond the scope of the paper by suggesting potential future research directions or discussing the broader implications of the findings. This type of conclusion is often used in more theoretical or exploratory research papers.

The conclusion in a research paper serves several important purposes:

  • Offers Implications and Recommendations : Your research paper conclusion is an excellent place to discuss the broader implications of your research and suggest potential areas for further study. It’s also an opportunity to offer practical recommendations based on your findings.
  • Provides Closure : A good research paper conclusion provides a sense of closure to your paper. It should leave the reader with a feeling that they have reached the end of a well-structured and thought-provoking research project.
  • Leaves a Lasting Impression : Writing a well-crafted research paper conclusion leaves a lasting impression on your readers. It’s your final opportunity to leave them with a new idea, a call to action, or a memorable quote.

summary of correction in research

Writing a strong conclusion for your research paper is essential to leave a lasting impression on your readers. Here’s a step-by-step process to help you create and know what to put in the conclusion of a research paper: 2

  • Research Statement : Begin your research paper conclusion by restating your research statement. This reminds the reader of the main point you’ve been trying to prove throughout your paper. Keep it concise and clear.
  • Key Points : Summarize the main arguments and key points you’ve made in your paper. Avoid introducing new information in the research paper conclusion. Instead, provide a concise overview of what you’ve discussed in the body of your paper.
  • Address the Research Questions : If your research paper is based on specific research questions or hypotheses, briefly address whether you’ve answered them or achieved your research goals. Discuss the significance of your findings in this context.
  • Significance : Highlight the importance of your research and its relevance in the broader context. Explain why your findings matter and how they contribute to the existing knowledge in your field.
  • Implications : Explore the practical or theoretical implications of your research. How might your findings impact future research, policy, or real-world applications? Consider the “so what?” question.
  • Future Research : Offer suggestions for future research in your area. What questions or aspects remain unanswered or warrant further investigation? This shows that your work opens the door for future exploration.
  • Closing Thought : Conclude your research paper conclusion with a thought-provoking or memorable statement. This can leave a lasting impression on your readers and wrap up your paper effectively. Avoid introducing new information or arguments here.
  • Proofread and Revise : Carefully proofread your conclusion for grammar, spelling, and clarity. Ensure that your ideas flow smoothly and that your conclusion is coherent and well-structured.

Remember that a well-crafted research paper conclusion is a reflection of the strength of your research and your ability to communicate its significance effectively. It should leave a lasting impression on your readers and tie together all the threads of your paper. Now you know how to start the conclusion of a research paper and what elements to include to make it impactful, let’s look at a research paper conclusion sample.

summary of correction in research

The research paper conclusion is a crucial part of your paper as it provides the final opportunity to leave a strong impression on your readers. In the research paper conclusion, summarize the main points of your research paper by restating your research statement, highlighting the most important findings, addressing the research questions or objectives, explaining the broader context of the study, discussing the significance of your findings, providing recommendations if applicable, and emphasizing the takeaway message. The main purpose of the conclusion is to remind the reader of the main point or argument of your paper and to provide a clear and concise summary of the key findings and their implications. All these elements should feature on your list of what to put in the conclusion of a research paper to create a strong final statement for your work.

A strong conclusion is a critical component of a research paper, as it provides an opportunity to wrap up your arguments, reiterate your main points, and leave a lasting impression on your readers. Here are the key elements of a strong research paper conclusion: 1. Conciseness : A research paper conclusion should be concise and to the point. It should not introduce new information or ideas that were not discussed in the body of the paper. 2. Summarization : The research paper conclusion should be comprehensive enough to give the reader a clear understanding of the research’s main contributions. 3 . Relevance : Ensure that the information included in the research paper conclusion is directly relevant to the research paper’s main topic and objectives; avoid unnecessary details. 4 . Connection to the Introduction : A well-structured research paper conclusion often revisits the key points made in the introduction and shows how the research has addressed the initial questions or objectives. 5. Emphasis : Highlight the significance and implications of your research. Why is your study important? What are the broader implications or applications of your findings? 6 . Call to Action : Include a call to action or a recommendation for future research or action based on your findings.

The length of a research paper conclusion can vary depending on several factors, including the overall length of the paper, the complexity of the research, and the specific journal requirements. While there is no strict rule for the length of a conclusion, but it’s generally advisable to keep it relatively short. A typical research paper conclusion might be around 5-10% of the paper’s total length. For example, if your paper is 10 pages long, the conclusion might be roughly half a page to one page in length.

In general, you do not need to include citations in the research paper conclusion. Citations are typically reserved for the body of the paper to support your arguments and provide evidence for your claims. However, there may be some exceptions to this rule: 1. If you are drawing a direct quote or paraphrasing a specific source in your research paper conclusion, you should include a citation to give proper credit to the original author. 2. If your conclusion refers to or discusses specific research, data, or sources that are crucial to the overall argument, citations can be included to reinforce your conclusion’s validity.

The conclusion of a research paper serves several important purposes: 1. Summarize the Key Points 2. Reinforce the Main Argument 3. Provide Closure 4. Offer Insights or Implications 5. Engage the Reader. 6. Reflect on Limitations

Remember that the primary purpose of the research paper conclusion is to leave a lasting impression on the reader, reinforcing the key points and providing closure to your research. It’s often the last part of the paper that the reader will see, so it should be strong and well-crafted.

  • Makar, G., Foltz, C., Lendner, M., & Vaccaro, A. R. (2018). How to write effective discussion and conclusion sections. Clinical spine surgery, 31(8), 345-346.
  • Bunton, D. (2005). The structure of PhD conclusion chapters.  Journal of English for academic purposes ,  4 (3), 207-224.

Paperpal is an AI academic writing assistant that helps authors write better and faster with real-time writing suggestions and in-depth checks for language and grammar correction. Trained on millions of published scholarly articles and 20+ years of STM experience, Paperpal delivers human precision at machine speed.    

Try it for free or upgrade to  Paperpal Prime , which unlocks unlimited access to Paperpal Copilot and premium features like academic translation, paraphrasing, contextual synonyms, consistency checks, submission readiness and more. It’s like always having a professional academic editor by your side! Go beyond limitations and experience the future of academic writing.  Get Paperpal Prime now at just US$19 a month!  

Related Reads:

  • 5 Reasons for Rejection After Peer Review
  • Ethical Research Practices For Research with Human Subjects

7 Ways to Improve Your Academic Writing Process

  • Chemistry Terms: 7 Commonly Confused Words in Chemistry Manuscripts

Preflight For Editorial Desk: The Perfect Hybrid (AI + Human) Assistance Against Compromised Manuscripts

You may also like, what are the different types of research papers, how to make translating academic papers less challenging, self-plagiarism in research: what it is and how..., 6 tips for post-doc researchers to take their..., presenting research data effectively through tables and figures, ethics in science: importance, principles & guidelines , jenni ai review: top features, pricing, and alternatives, 8 most effective ways to increase motivation for..., how to make your thesis supervision work for..., publish or perish – understanding the importance of....

  • Resources Home 🏠
  • Try SciSpace Copilot
  • Search research papers
  • Add Copilot Extension
  • Try AI Detector
  • Try Paraphraser
  • Try Citation Generator
  • April Papers
  • June Papers
  • July Papers

SciSpace Resources

How To Write A Research Summary

Deeptanshu D

It’s a common perception that writing a research summary is a quick and easy task. After all, how hard can jotting down 300 words be? But when you consider the weight those 300 words carry, writing a research summary as a part of your dissertation, essay or compelling draft for your paper instantly becomes daunting task.

A research summary requires you to synthesize a complex research paper into an informative, self-explanatory snapshot. It needs to portray what your article contains. Thus, writing it often comes at the end of the task list.

Regardless of when you’re planning to write, it is no less of a challenge, particularly if you’re doing it for the first time. This blog will take you through everything you need to know about research summary so that you have an easier time with it.

How to write a research summary

What is a Research Summary?

A research summary is the part of your research paper that describes its findings to the audience in a brief yet concise manner. A well-curated research summary represents you and your knowledge about the information written in the research paper.

While writing a quality research summary, you need to discover and identify the significant points in the research and condense it in a more straightforward form. A research summary is like a doorway that provides access to the structure of a research paper's sections.

Since the purpose of a summary is to give an overview of the topic, methodology, and conclusions employed in a paper, it requires an objective approach. No analysis or criticism.

Research summary or Abstract. What’s the Difference?

They’re both brief, concise, and give an overview of an aspect of the research paper. So, it’s easy to understand why many new researchers get the two confused. However, a research summary and abstract are two very different things with individual purpose. To start with, a research summary is written at the end while the abstract comes at the beginning of a research paper.

A research summary captures the essence of the paper at the end of your document. It focuses on your topic, methods, and findings. More like a TL;DR, if you will. An abstract, on the other hand, is a description of what your research paper is about. It tells your reader what your topic or hypothesis is, and sets a context around why you have embarked on your research.

Getting Started with a Research Summary

Before you start writing, you need to get insights into your research’s content, style, and organization. There are three fundamental areas of a research summary that you should focus on.

  • While deciding the contents of your research summary, you must include a section on its importance as a whole, the techniques, and the tools that were used to formulate the conclusion. Additionally, there needs to be a short but thorough explanation of how the findings of the research paper have a significance.
  • To keep the summary well-organized, try to cover the various sections of the research paper in separate paragraphs. Besides, how the idea of particular factual research came up first must be explained in a separate paragraph.
  • As a general practice worldwide, research summaries are restricted to 300-400 words. However, if you have chosen a lengthy research paper, try not to exceed the word limit of 10% of the entire research paper.

How to Structure Your Research Summary

The research summary is nothing but a concise form of the entire research paper. Therefore, the structure of a summary stays the same as the paper. So, include all the section titles and write a little about them. The structural elements that a research summary must consist of are:

It represents the topic of the research. Try to phrase it so that it includes the key findings or conclusion of the task.

The abstract gives a context of the research paper. Unlike the abstract at the beginning of a paper, the abstract here, should be very short since you’ll be working with a limited word count.


This is the most crucial section of a research summary as it helps readers get familiarized with the topic. You should include the definition of your topic, the current state of the investigation, and practical relevance in this part. Additionally, you should present the problem statement, investigative measures, and any hypothesis in this section.


This section provides details about the methodology and the methods adopted to conduct the study. You should write a brief description of the surveys, sampling, type of experiments, statistical analysis, and the rationality behind choosing those particular methods.

Create a list of evidence obtained from the various experiments with a primary analysis, conclusions, and interpretations made upon that. In the paper research paper, you will find the results section as the most detailed and lengthy part. Therefore, you must pick up the key elements and wisely decide which elements are worth including and which are worth skipping.

This is where you present the interpretation of results in the context of their application. Discussion usually covers results, inferences, and theoretical models explaining the obtained values, key strengths, and limitations. All of these are vital elements that you must include in the summary.

Most research papers merge conclusion with discussions. However, depending upon the instructions, you may have to prepare this as a separate section in your research summary. Usually, conclusion revisits the hypothesis and provides the details about the validation or denial about the arguments made in the research paper, based upon how convincing the results were obtained.

The structure of a research summary closely resembles the anatomy of a scholarly article . Additionally, you should keep your research and references limited to authentic and  scholarly sources only.

Tips for Writing a Research Summary

The core concept behind undertaking a research summary is to present a simple and clear understanding of your research paper to the reader. The biggest hurdle while doing that is the number of words you have at your disposal. So, follow the steps below to write a research summary that sticks.

1. Read the parent paper thoroughly

You should go through the research paper thoroughly multiple times to ensure that you have a complete understanding of its contents. A 3-stage reading process helps.

a. Scan: In the first read, go through it to get an understanding of its basic concept and methodologies.

b. Read: For the second step, read the article attentively by going through each section, highlighting the key elements, and subsequently listing the topics that you will include in your research summary.

c. Skim: Flip through the article a few more times to study the interpretation of various experimental results, statistical analysis, and application in different contexts.

Sincerely go through different headings and subheadings as it will allow you to understand the underlying concept of each section. You can try reading the introduction and conclusion simultaneously to understand the motive of the task and how obtained results stay fit to the expected outcome.

2. Identify the key elements in different sections

While exploring different sections of an article, you can try finding answers to simple what, why, and how. Below are a few pointers to give you an idea:

  • What is the research question and how is it addressed?
  • Is there a hypothesis in the introductory part?
  • What type of methods are being adopted?
  • What is the sample size for data collection and how is it being analyzed?
  • What are the most vital findings?
  • Do the results support the hypothesis?


  • What is the final solution to the problem statement?
  • What is the explanation for the obtained results?
  • What is the drawn inference?
  • What are the various limitations of the study?

3. Prepare the first draft

Now that you’ve listed the key points that the paper tries to demonstrate, you can start writing the summary following the standard structure of a research summary. Just make sure you’re not writing statements from the parent research paper verbatim.

Instead, try writing down each section in your own words. This will not only help in avoiding plagiarism but will also show your complete understanding of the subject. Alternatively, you can use a summarizing tool (AI-based summary generators) to shorten the content or summarize the content without disrupting the actual meaning of the article.

SciSpace Copilot is one such helpful feature! You can easily upload your research paper and ask Copilot to summarize it. You will get an AI-generated, condensed research summary. SciSpace Copilot also enables you to highlight text, clip math and tables, and ask any question relevant to the research paper; it will give you instant answers with deeper context of the article..

4. Include visuals

One of the best ways to summarize and consolidate a research paper is to provide visuals like graphs, charts, pie diagrams, etc.. Visuals make getting across the facts, the past trends, and the probabilistic figures around a concept much more engaging.

5. Double check for plagiarism

It can be very tempting to copy-paste a few statements or the entire paragraphs depending upon the clarity of those sections. But it’s best to stay away from the practice. Even paraphrasing should be done with utmost care and attention.

Also: QuillBot vs SciSpace: Choose the best AI-paraphrasing tool

6. Religiously follow the word count limit

You need to have strict control while writing different sections of a research summary. In many cases, it has been observed that the research summary and the parent research paper become the same length. If that happens, it can lead to discrediting of your efforts and research summary itself. Whatever the standard word limit has been imposed, you must observe that carefully.

7. Proofread your research summary multiple times

The process of writing the research summary can be exhausting and tiring. However, you shouldn’t allow this to become a reason to skip checking your academic writing several times for mistakes like misspellings, grammar, wordiness, and formatting issues. Proofread and edit until you think your research summary can stand out from the others, provided it is drafted perfectly on both technicality and comprehension parameters. You can also seek assistance from editing and proofreading services , and other free tools that help you keep these annoying grammatical errors at bay.

8. Watch while you write

Keep a keen observation of your writing style. You should use the words very precisely, and in any situation, it should not represent your personal opinions on the topic. You should write the entire research summary in utmost impersonal, precise, factually correct, and evidence-based writing.

9. Ask a friend/colleague to help

Once you are done with the final copy of your research summary, you must ask a friend or colleague to read it. You must test whether your friend or colleague could grasp everything without referring to the parent paper. This will help you in ensuring the clarity of the article.

Once you become familiar with the research paper summary concept and understand how to apply the tips discussed above in your current task, summarizing a research summary won’t be that challenging. While traversing the different stages of your academic career, you will face different scenarios where you may have to create several research summaries.

In such cases, you just need to look for answers to simple questions like “Why this study is necessary,” “what were the methods,” “who were the participants,” “what conclusions were drawn from the research,” and “how it is relevant to the wider world.” Once you find out the answers to these questions, you can easily create a good research summary following the standard structure and a precise writing style.

summary of correction in research

You might also like

Consensus GPT vs. SciSpace GPT: Choose the Best GPT for Research

Consensus GPT vs. SciSpace GPT: Choose the Best GPT for Research

Sumalatha G

Literature Review and Theoretical Framework: Understanding the Differences

Nikhil Seethi

Types of Essays in Academic Writing

Correction: Review: a comprehensive summary of a decade development of the recombinase polymerase amplification


  • 1 Laboratory for MEMS Applications, IMTEK - Department of Microsystems Engineering, University of Freiburg, Georges-Köhler-Allee 103, 79110 Freiburg, Germany. [email protected].
  • 2 Inflammation and Healing Research Cluster, Genecology Research Centre, School of Science and Engineering, University of the Sunshine Coast, Qld, Australia. [email protected] and Division of Experimental Therapeutics, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA. [email protected].
  • 3 Laboratory for MEMS Applications, IMTEK - Department of Microsystems Engineering, University of Freiburg, Georges-Köhler-Allee 103, 79110 Freiburg, Germany. [email protected] and Hahn-Schickard, Georges-Köhler-Allee 103, 79110 Freiburg, Germany.
  • PMID: 31971531
  • DOI: 10.1039/c9an90127b

Correction for 'Review: a comprehensive summary of a decade development of the recombinase polymerase amplification' by Jia Li et al., Analyst, 2019, 144, 31-67.

Publication types

  • Published Erratum

Book cover

Error Correction in the Foreign Language Classroom pp 159–246 Cite as

Research on Error Correction

  • Mirosław Pawlak 3  
  • First Online: 01 January 2013

2559 Accesses

Part of the Second Language Learning and Teaching book series (SLLT)

The preceding chapter has adopted a predominantly pedagogic perspective by discussing the possible effects of oral and written error correction with respect to the development of explicit and implicit knowledge, the distinctive characteristics of the two types of feedback, as well as the decisions that teachers have at their disposal in this respect, offering simultaneously some comments on the value of specific corrective techniques.

  • Error Correction
  • Corrective Move
  • Linguistic Feature
  • Corrective Feedback
  • Implicit Feedback

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution .

Buying options

  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
  • Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Ellis (2010b) draws attentionto the fact that different theoretical justifications can be provided for each of these two distinctions. In the case of input-providing and output-inducing corrective feedback, for example, the claims of cognitive interactionist theoretical positions, such as the modified version of the Interaction Hypothesis (Long 1996), according to which it is input that constitutes the driving force of second language development, are pitted against the tenets of Skill-Learning Theory (De Keyser 1998, 2001), which posits that the production of output is indispensible for acquisition.

Truth be told, the distinction between fluency-oriented and accuracy-based activities would be rather difficult to maintain in the present discussion on account of the fact that the types of interaction during which CF was provided in particular studies are sometimes difficult to pinpoint and they in most cases fall somewhere in between relatively free communication and the performance of code-related activities.

The direct consequence of the broader focus of research into incidental focus on form is reliance on a different unit of analysis than that typically employed in studies of oral corrective feedback. This is usually a focus on form episode (FFE), “(…) which includes all discourse pertaining to the specific linguistic structure that is the focus of attention” (Loewen 2003, p. 318). This allows researchers to investigate not only reactive (i.e. error correction) but also preemptive (i.e. before an error is made) focus on form.

A brief description of this coding scheme, based on Allen et al. (1984), can be found in note 10 in Chap. 2 .

It should be pointed out that in the studies conducted by Lyster and Ranta (1997) and Lyster (1998b), an additional category of unsolicited uses of the first language was included, which, of course, cannot be treated as errors per se , but may be regarded and responded to as such by many teachers.

Panova and Lyster (2002, p. 590) also included in their analysis “(…) a type of clarification request that focused on the literal, unintended meaning of learner utterance”. Even though this as well constitutes departure from the analytical framework used by Lyster in Ranta (1997), it does not entail the need to introduce an entirely new category.

Tailor-made tests were used prior to that in what is known as text-reconstruction activities , such as those based on the idea of strategic interaction (DiPietro 1994) or those using the dictogloss procedure (Swain 1998).

See footnote 3 earlier in this section for the definition of FFEs.

An interesting reanalysis of these data as well as those procured in the course of earlier studies (e.g. Loewen 2004) is reported by Loewen (2007). Here, in addition to using the individualized test items from Loewen (2005), the researcher also investigated prior and subsequent use of the targeted forms in 4.5 h of classroom interaction with the help of a corpus analysis software program. He found no relationship between correct subsequent use of a specific feature and successful uptake as well as the results of individualized posttests, although he reported that, on the whole, the subjects were less accurate before the occurrence of form-focused episodes than afterwards. In contrast to the study outlined in the text, such findings clearly cast doubt on the significance of uptake as a measure of language learning. This led Loewen (2007, pp. 144–115) to comment that “(…) these findings suggest that studies of uptake should continue to be cautious in interpreting its significance. (…) [and] illustrate the importance of measuring learners’ L2 knowledge in a variety of ways”.

For the sake of convenience, the term experimental is used here to refer both to true experiments, or studies conducted in laboratory settings, and quasi-experiments , or research projects carried out in real classrooms and using intact learner groups.

A detailed description of the construction and scoring of these instruments as well as the others included in the battery is beyond the scope of the present chapter and can be found in the papers included in a recent publication edited by Ellis et al. (2009). The interested reader is also referred to the paper by Mystkowska-Wiertelak (2011), which offers an interesting and instructive critique of the use of oral elicited imitation as a measure of implicit knowledge.

While the total scores provide information about the overall performance of the groups, thus making it possible to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of the two types of correction, the appearance of grammatical and ungrammatical items may reflect reliance on different types of knowledge (i.e. implicit vs. explicit), and the distinction between old and new items allows insights into the extent to which the improvement is the outcome of item or system learning (cf. Ellis 2005b, 2009b).

The results concerning the performance of the whole groups are reported in an earlier paper by Ammar and Spada (2006), which is referred to in the following section as part of the discussion of research into the effects of input-providing and output-prompting oral error correction.

The scale is a simplified version of the sequence of eight developmental stages originally proposed by Zobl (1984).

The students were divided into the high-anxiety group and low-anxiety group taking into account the total mean score and standard deviation. More precisely, those who scored one standard deviation above the mean were considered to manifest high anxiety levels and those who scored one standard deviation below the mean were regarded as displaying low anxiety levels. The participants who scored between the two values were excluded from the analysis.

As Dörnyei (2005, p. 57) writes, the working memory span is “(…) a robust predictor of a wide range of complex cognitive skills and it is highly correlated with performance on the type of reasoning tasks that underpin standard tests of intelligence”. The test is used to measure processing and storage of information in a dynamic and simultaneous way.

Ellis (2007) discusses the difficulty involved in the acquisition of these two features with respect to such criteria as grammatical domain, input frequency, learnability, explicit knowledge, reliability, scope, formal semantic redundancy, and experts’ opinions.

The feedback was provided in exactly the same way as in the study conducted by Ellis et al. (2006) reported above. The testing instruments were also identical.

It should be noted that Mackey’s (2006b) suggestions are made in relation to interactionist research in its entirety rather than only studies of oral corrective feedback.

There is no agreement among researchers as to the value of learners’ incorporating into their own production the reformulation contained in a recast. On the one hand, researchers such as Mackey and Philp (1998) take the stance that whether or not learners actually manage to repeat a recast may be inconsequential to acquisition and it is redundant in the error correction sequence that is both initiated and completed by the teacher. On the other hand, however, according to the tenets of the Output Hypothesis (Swain 1985, 1995, 2002), even such production can assist the move from semantic to syntactic processing, aid the process of hypothesis-testing, and contribute to greater automatization.

A very different evaluation of the efficacy of recasts can be found in the paper by Goo and Mackey (2013), who point to a number of methodological flaws and interpretative problems in the studies conducted to date.

As explained in Sect. 2.2 in Chap. 2 , recasts simultaneously constitute positive and negative evidence, but, in fact, the latter may turn out to be irrelevant in situations when learners fail to notice their corrective function.

Samuda’s (2001) study in fact consisted of three stages, in which the learners first performed a communicative task without any intervention on the part of the teacher, then they made presentations to the whole class during which feedback was provided, and, finally, they were requested to prepare a poster on their own, with the teacher yet again adopting the non-directive role of an observer.

The six subtypes of reformulation were as follows: (1) isolated recast minus prompt, (2) isolated recast plus prompt, (3) embedded recast minus prompt, (4) embedded recast plus prompt, (5) recast plus enhanced prompts, and (6) recast plus expansion. The five subtypes of elicitations included: (1) unmarked elicitation, (2) marked elicitation, (3) marked elicitation plus prompts, (4) marked elicitation plus enhanced prompt, and (5) elliptical elicitation. He also isolated the category of other feedback that contained explicit correction, repetition with falling intonation and various content negotiation moves.

It should be kept in mind, however, that the study focused both on negotiation of form and meaning, with the effect that it did not attempt to tease apart the differential effects of confirmation checks and clarification requests following utterances that were genuinely misunderstood and those where the negotiation move was meant to be corrective in nature. On the whole, the incidence of negotiated interaction was rather low (0.66 such exchanges per task), it was predominantly conversational rather than didactic in nature, and the adjustments made by interlocutors in response to feedback were in most cases minimal. Interestingly, similar findings have been reported by Pica (2002), who analyzed discussion activities in L2 content classes. To be more specific, the incidence of interactional feedback in the form of recasts and negotiation moves was low, with the effect that output modifications hardly ever occurred. This led the researcher to conclude that such activities fail to provide learners with both positive and negative evidence, the latter of which is particularly significant for language learning.

In fact, the considerable improvement on the delayed posttest could be attributed to the fact that the learner took part in stimulated recall sessions in the interval between the two tests which involved commenting on the corrective episodes. Thus, the evidence for the positive impact of recasts becomes somewhat tenuous.

In fact, this applies in equal measure to other types of corrective feedback that are often compared with recasts, an issue that will be touched upon later in the present section.

An interesting discussion of the methodological issues involved in the coding of corrective recasts can be found in Hauser (2005), who warns that coding schemes ignore the construction of meaning by participants in the local context of interaction.

It should be noted that the errors were also corrected in the written versions of the report by means of circling and juxtaposing them with reformulations. Given the availability of the oral feedback to all learners, however, it appears justified to discuss the study in this section rather than the one dealing with written error correction.

In both this study and the one undertaken by McDonough and Mackey (2006), the developmental levels were established in accordance with the scale developed by Pienemann and Johnston (1987).

Syntactic priming , also known as structural priming , is defined as the use of a structure that has been previously heard or spoken in subsequent utterances (Bock 1995). Two experiments investigating its occurrence in interactions between L2 speakers of English are reported by McDonough (2006).

Although Ishida (2004) did not include a control group that would have only taken part in negotiated interaction, the time-series design allowed her to document the progress as a result of the intervention, not only from the pretest to the posttest, but also from one instructional session to the next, with the effect that the subjects acted as their own controls. This is the reason why the study is discussed together with research projects actually comparing the effects of interaction with and without recasts.

It should be noted that two students also participated in a delayed posttest conversational session that took place after 7 weeks.

There have also been attempts to investigate the relative effects of explicit feedback and prompts, as evidenced by the research project by Nipaspong and Chinokul (2010), focusing on the development of pragmatic awareness. This is not an important line of inquiry, however, and one might wonder in fact whether it is at all possible to isolate the effects of the two given that prompting also involves the provision of highly explicit metalinguistic clues.

It should be noted that the two distinctions are bound to overlap to some degree in studies seeking to explore the value of input-providing and output-pushing feedback options, such as those conducted by Lyster (2004) or Ammar and Spada (2006). This is because, although prompts may differ considerably in the degree of their explicitness, they are typically more overt than recasts, a somewhat extreme example being the provision of metalinguistic information.

In fact, they equate the distinction between explicit and implicit feedback on errors in speech with that between direct and indirect feedback on written errors, which is highly problematic, as the learner is always cognizant of the corrective force of the indications included in a piece of writing, whether these provide the accurate forms or merely serve the purpose of highlighting the problems.

It should be noted that Lyster and Saito (2010) did not consider the difference between explicit and implicit feedback as such, but looked at the effects of prompts, recasts and explicit correction, which renders the interpretation provided by the present author somewhat speculative. Still, elements of explicitness can be found both in metalinguistic feedback and elicitations, which are prompts, and direct correction, with the effect that more overt CF options can be regarded as more likely to foster the acquisition of the targeted language forms.

Worth mentioning is also the study conducted by Adams, Nuevo and Egi (2012), which generated evidence for the link between the use of implicit CF in the form of recasts, output modifications, and gains in explicit knowledge, but failed to find such an advantage for explicit CF in the form of direct correction. It is not considered here in detail, however, because it examined peer correction during learner-learner interactions while the focus of the present section is on expert correction, whether delivered by the teacher, native speaker, or via the computer.

It is worth pointing out that Goo and Mackey (2013) are rather skeptical of the value of such studies, arguing that they suffer from methodological flaws, related, for example, to the failure to control for modified output opportunities, the comparison of a single variable with multiple variables, the presence of form-focused instruction, as well as unclear contributions of prior knowledge and out-of-class exposure. In the opinion of Lyster and Ranta (2013, p. 181), however, these concerns are overstated, for the reason that applied SLA researchers should be “(…) concerned with investigating SLA phenomena that are of practical significance to teaching and with conducting research in such a way that it is transparently relevant to teachers”.

It should be explained that proficiency was defined here as the participants’ mastery of the targeted features on the pretest rather than in general terms.

The contrasting results of the studies conducted by Sheen (2007a) and Goo (2012) are likely to stem from the fact that they operationalized and measured aptitude in different ways. Another possible explanation is that they involved different instructional targets.

Indeed, it is possible to view developmental readiness as both an attribute of the learner, as he or she has to be psycholinguistically ready to internalize a particular structure or capable of performing the requisite processing operations, or as a property of that structure, since some linguistic features may be developmentally early and others late, and there are also such that are variational in nature, i.e. they are not constrained by developmental stages or processing operations (Pienemann and Johnston 1986). The decision to regard developmental readiness as a linguistic factor reflects the way in which it was classified in Sect. 4.2.2 , where the framework for investigation error correction was introduced.

Such effects, however, were less clearly visible for the other two targeted forms, that is plurals and past tense, which shows that learners’ cognitive response interacts with linguistic factors (Egi 2007).

It should be stressed one more time that the present author fully concurs with Sheen (2010c) and Sheen and Ellis (2011), who make the point that written corrective feedback can only be explicit. What Ferris (2010) seems to have in mind in this quote in fact is the distinction between direct and indirect feedback, which could, in everyday parlance, be viewed as differing with reference to the degree of their explicitness.

On account of the fact that the study had several foci, it also serves as an illustration of how learner engagement with written corrective feedback can be investigated.

In fact, the procedure involved the learners not only reading the story before being asked to rewrite it but also the teacher reading it aloud so that the students could jot down the key words, which makes the activity similar to the dictogloss, a text-reconstruction task frequently employed by researchers in the area of form-focused instruction (e.g. Swain 1998).

Language-related episodes are to a large extent identical to focus-on-form episodes defined in note 3 earlier in this chapter, but the former rather than the latter tend to be used when analyzing interactions between learners that take place in pairs or small groups.

These weaknesses are most often related to the lack of a true control group, the failure to control for all the extraneous variables, the nature of the outcome measures and assessment procedures, and the presence of only one posttest, which precludes the researchers from advancing claims about the long-term contributions of different types of treatment.

According to the classification introduced in Sect. in Chapter 3 , (3) is also an example of indirect feedback since the correct version is not provided by the teacher. Bitchener and Knoch (2010), however, view it as a form of direct feedback.

In most of these studies, the main emphasis is laid on the quality of learners’ noticing of the changes made to their initial texts. Since noticing is reflective of learner response to feedback, the discussion here is only confined to the impact of reformulation on subsequent revisions.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Pedagogy and Fine Arts, Adam Mickiewicz University, Nowy Swiat 28-30, 62-800, Kalisz, Poland

Mirosław Pawlak

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mirosław Pawlak .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter.

Pawlak, M. (2014). Research on Error Correction. In: Error Correction in the Foreign Language Classroom. Second Language Learning and Teaching. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

Download citation


Published : 10 August 2013

Publisher Name : Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

Print ISBN : 978-3-642-38435-6

Online ISBN : 978-3-642-38436-3

eBook Packages : Humanities, Social Sciences and Law Education (R0)

Share this chapter

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

  • Publish with us

Policies and ethics

  • Find a journal
  • Track your research
  • Open access
  • Published: 07 March 2024

Correction: Strategies to improve care for older adults who present to the emergency department: a systematic review

  • Luke Testa 1 ,
  • Lieke Richardson 1 ,
  • Colleen Cheek 1 ,
  • Theresa Hensel 1 , 2 ,
  • Elizabeth Austin 1 ,
  • Mariam Safi 1 , 3 , 4 ,
  • Natália Ransolin 1 , 5 ,
  • Ann Carrigan 1 ,
  • Janet Long 1 ,
  • Karen Hutchinson 1 ,
  • Magali Goirand 1 ,
  • Mia Bierbaum 1 , 6 ,
  • Felicity Bleckly 1 ,
  • Peter Hibbert 1 , 6 ,
  • Kate Churruca 1 &
  • Robyn Clay-Williams 1  

BMC Health Services Research volume  24 , Article number:  304 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

The Original Article was published on 08 February 2024

Correction to : BMC Health Services Research (2024) 24:123. .

In this article, the author name Felicity Bleckly was incorrectly written as Felicity Bleckley. The author group has been updated above and the original article has been corrected.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Level 6, 75 Talavera Road, North Ryde, 2109, Australia

Luke Testa, Lieke Richardson, Colleen Cheek, Theresa Hensel, Elizabeth Austin, Mariam Safi, Natália Ransolin, Ann Carrigan, Janet Long, Karen Hutchinson, Magali Goirand, Mia Bierbaum, Felicity Bleckly, Peter Hibbert, Kate Churruca & Robyn Clay-Williams

Institute of Medical Sociology, Health Services Research and Rehabilitation Science (IMVR), University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany

Theresa Hensel

Internal Medicine Research Unit, University Hospital of Southern Denmark, Aabenraa, Denmark

Mariam Safi

Department of Regional Health Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark

Universidade Federal Do Rio Grande Do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil

Natália Ransolin

Allied Health and Human Performance, IIMPACT in Health, University of South Australia, Adelaide, 5001, Australia

Mia Bierbaum & Peter Hibbert

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Colleen Cheek .

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

The online version of the original article can be found at .

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 . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Testa, L., Richardson, L., Cheek, C. et al. Correction: Strategies to improve care for older adults who present to the emergency department: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res 24 , 304 (2024).

Download citation

Published : 07 March 2024


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

BMC Health Services Research

ISSN: 1472-6963

summary of correction in research

U.S. flag

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
  • Advanced Search
  • Journal List
  • HHS Author Manuscripts

Logo of nihpa

Challenges and Strategies for Research in Prisons

Zoltán l. apa.

1 School of Nursing, Columbia University, New York, New York

Dhritiman V. Mukherejee

2 Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, New York

4 Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, New York

Carolyn T. A. Herzig

Carl koenigsmann.

3 New York State Department of Corrections, Albany, New York

Franklin D. Lowy

Elaine l. larson.

In this article, we discuss some of the challenges encountered while conducting research in two maximum security prisons and approaches we found helpful to facilitate the research process through the development of collaborative relationships, the establishment of prison contacts, and the implementation of rigorous research methods. As a result of our experiences, we have been successful at maintaining a high rate of inmate participation (>80%) and a well-functioning multidisciplinary team. The approaches described may be useful to other investigators planning to conduct research in a challenging setting such as prisons.

Over 9.8 million people are incarcerated throughout the world, with the United States having the highest incarceration rate at 756 per 100,000 of the national population ( Walmsley, 2009 ). Although a decline in the growth rate of the overall prison population has been seen in recent years, the number of adults under correctional supervision increased about fourfold between 1980 and 2009, from 1,840,400 to 7,225,800 ( Walmsley, 2009 ). Inmates are a vulnerable population at high risk for violence, substance abuse, mental illness, and infectious diseases. As a result, correctional facilities are an important site for public health research. There is a growing body of literature regarding prison inmates, and a few publications have provided guidance regarding the challenges and strategies for public health research conducted within these facilities ( Byrne, 2005 ; Fox, Zambrana & Lane, 2011 ; Innes & Everett, 2008 ; Patenaude, 2004 ; Quina et al., 2007 ; Wakai, Shelton, Trestman & Kesten, 2009 ). This article adds to the existing literature by addressing research challenges and approaches using our study (Risk Factors for Spread of Staphylococcus aureus in Prisons, 5R01AI82536) in two New York State maximum security prisons as a framework. Aims of this article are to propose methods to (a) develop a collaborative research relationship between an academic institution and a department of corrections, (b) establish prison contacts, and (c) maintain rigorous research methods in the context of sustaining security and confidentiality ( Table 1 ). Although the collaborative and methodological procedures described below were tailored to our research goals, they can serve as a general guideline for investigators seeking to conduct research within the maximum security prison environment.

Essential Components and Approaches for Conducting Research with a Department of Corrections

Develop a Collaborative Research Relationship

Know the system.

By nature of its mission, The Department of Corrections must maintain a controlled, secure setting ( Wakai et al., 2009 ). As part of the National Institute of Justice’s appraisal action aimed at developing more effective decision tools, however, efforts are being made to develop cooperative relationships with research institutions ( Welsh & Zajac, 2004 ). Hence, correctional facilities administrators have become more receptive to collaborations with universities and other research-based organizations in recent years ( Welsh & Zajac, 2004 ). To facilitate successful research within correctional facilities, researchers need to acquire a basic knowledge of the administrative system within the Department of Corrections, and the various stakeholders and decision makers, to identify appropriate research partners and to get a realistic sense of what types of research methods and approaches are possible and acceptable in the context of a setting in which safety and security are primary ( Fox et al., 2011 ; Greifinger, 2007 ; Vanderhoff, Jeglic & Donovick, 2011 ; Welsh & Zajac, 2004 ).

The involvement of key correctional officials, such as the Chief Medical Officer and the correctional facility Superintendent and Facility Health Services Director, is crucial for conducting public health research. As the Department of Corrections is a top down/hierarchical institution, all approvals must be granted first by the head of the appropriate departments. To properly set the stage for successful research, it is extremely important to identify a senior prison administrator as co-investigator. The close collaboration and support of the Chief Medical Officer of the New York State Department of Corrections as a collaborator on our study was essential to its successful implementation.

Obtain appropriate permissions

This study’s initial challenge was to obtain the necessary approvals from both the Columbia University Institutional Review Board (IRB) and the Central Office of the NYS Department of Corrections. For studies involving inmates, IRBs are required to have a prisoner advocate who reviews the protocol. In addition, certification from the Office of Human Research Protections (OHRP) Division of Policy and Assurance is necessary ( ). Because protocols must be reviewed and approved by both the Department of Corrections and the IRB, there may be considerable negotiations to request changes and clarifications. It may be difficult to determine whether it is more efficient to submit for approval simultaneously or serially as IRB approval and approval from the Department of Corrections are generally contingent upon each other. The appropriate staff at the Department of Corrections can be helpful in providing guidance throughout the review process, but researchers should not underestimate the amount of time required to review protocols that involve vulnerable populations such as prisoners ( Fox et al., 2011 ).

Emphasize mutual goals

Even with approval from top administrators, however, difficulties in the day-to-day operational aspects of the project may be encountered at lower administrative levels and among staff in direct contact with inmates. Hence, other correctional staff must also be well informed and involved in ongoing planning and discussions ( Appelbaum, 2008 ; Greifinger, 2007 ). To facilitate the development of mutually agreed-upon goals, meetings to discuss research interests and aims with facility superintendents, for feedback and modifications, are essential. Clarifying benefits of the research with the superintendents can deepen their involvement as stakeholders throughout the project ( Trulsona, Marquartb & Mullingsb, 2004 ). Properly aligned negotiations best succeed at the intersection of common interests.

We used a variety of mechanisms to enhance mutual goals. For example, we formed an Advisory Council, which included prison leaders who met on a regular basis. In addition, these prisons also had Inmate Liaison Committees (ILCs) with whom we meet to keep inmates updated and to obtain their feedback. Furthermore, we identified a “point person” within each prison to facilitate communication. Depending on the nature of the study, the position of this person may vary; in our case, the “point person” was a member of the health care staff who advised us as we navigated the system. We also met with correctional officers (COs) to describe the study and respond to any concerns, published an article in the state prison newsletter, and planned co-authorship opportunities with prison staff. Early in the project, at the request from one of the prison superintendents, we produced a video describing the study to inmates and correctional staff in which inmates were offered the opportunity to volunteer as “actors” in the video.

Establish the Prison Contacts

Prisons are unique, restricted, and, at times, unpredictable environments that operate as secure settings where each group has a well-defined, discrete role. To successfully carry out our prison research, we built collegial relationships within the prison system to establish a positive rapport with four distinct groups of personnel: administrative staff, health care staff, security staff, and inmates.

Administrative staff

Once appropriate approvals and clearances are obtained, a researcher’s interactions with the administrative staff are likely to be minimal. However, the researcher must maintain a positive relationship by keeping administrators well informed of the status of the project. Administrators need to hear directly from the researcher of progress, as well as any problems encountered, so that they are fully involved and understand any untoward or unexpected events that occur.

Health care staff

Health care staff, including physicians, nurses, and physician assistants, provide needed health care services for the inmate population. Studies that investigate different elements of inmates’ health require that researchers establish professional relationships with these key medical providers, who can help to facilitate the study.

Security staff

The prison security staff comprised largely COs whose role is to ensure security among the prison population and to help coordinate inmate activities. Thus, researchers will frequently interact with COs. In terms of security logistics, COs are empowered to delay or suspend inmates’ activities. Much depends on level of security-minimum, medium, and maximum. All visitors to the prison, including researchers, must be screened to enter. The steps in this process include having an appointment (i.e., being expected), carrying proper identification, and electronic or manual scanning. Depending on the prison security level, approved visitors might be stamped before entering the facility. For additional security in some prisons, visitors may be required to carry personal alarm pagers within the prison grounds. Electronic devices, such as computers and cell phones, are not allowed within the maximum security prisons; thus, all data collection must be in paper form in such security level prisons.

The research team is usually escorted by a CO to the data collection site(s). Developing a positive relationship with COs is important not only to ensure that research steps are completed effectively but also for the researchers’ safety. In addition, a positive relationship can help reduce concerns or suspicions that COs may have about the nature of the research being conducted and whether they will be expected to contribute or participate in any way. Responding to issues raised by COs and working with them to allay any concerns will prevent delays and greatly facilitate navigating the prison system. COs may be reluctant to express concerns, so it is essential that the research team members are sensitive and attuned to potential issues that may arise. During the course of our study, we found that efficient movement within the prison was greatly influenced by the security personnel; thus, being courteous and respectful to COs encouraged them to help us surmount encountered obstacles. This included making sure that inmates were present for interviews and obtaining as well as equipping the interview rooms.

The inmates are the largest group in prison settings. In our study, meeting with the ILCs to discuss our study aims and solicit their suggestions for ways to approach recruitment and data collection was the most effective means to communicate with the inmates. Through working with such representative bodies, relationships can be developed based on openness and mutual respect to maximize understanding and support for the study.

Maintain Rigorous Research Methods

Accommodate variations in prison cultures.

Although the overall goals of prisons may be similar, each prison has established its own culture and system. We recruited inmates from a women’s and a men’s maximum security prison in NYS, and the major challenge was learning their respective systems and finding the best ways to accommodate and plan for variations in access to inmates and data sources. For example, like most correctional facilities, both sites operated around a scheduled inmate routine. In one facility, the research team was allowed to interact with inmates only in the medical unit and only during their free time. In the other facility, we were allowed to directly recruit inmates from different sites during their assigned programs. Similarly, we were allowed to walk unescorted within one facility but were escorted by bus within the other facility, which required considerably more time. Such differences require careful planning and time management to account for mandated variations in prison systems and their individual requirements.

There were logistical advantages and disadvantages within each system. Although having to wait for a bus at one site prolonged our time, this process allowed the researchers to approach inmates directly and talk with them about the study. In contrast, the other facility’s system called out inmates to the medical unit which limited the number of interviews/participants due to issues such as inmates not receiving the call, deciding not to show up, or simply refusing to participate because they may not have been accurately informed about the study. Emphasizing the importance and overall benefit of this research to COs who delegated the calls minimized these issues.

In the beginning of our recruitment process at both facilities, we learned that explaining the study to a group of inmates, instead of individually, could have adverse effects. If a single inmate made a negative comment about the study, it was then amplified by the group so that other inmates were less likely to express interest in participating. In addition, we distributed approximately 50 flyers describing the study to recruit inmates, and only received a single response informing us that an inmate had moved. Subsequently, we found more appropriate ways to invite study participation such as getting support from the ILC to inform inmates of our study and talking to each inmate separately to avoid miscommunication.

Data collection

At the inception and before each phase of our study, we performed extensive pilot testing to assure that data collection methods were feasible, minimally disruptive, and acceptable to staff and inmates. We vetted the questionnaire with inmates at the outset and throughout the study. In addition, we have conducted meetings, formal presentations, and discussions with prison personnel and inmates to obtain feedback on a regular basis throughout the project. These activities have greatly facilitated the smooth functioning of the project.

A wide variety of data sources are available, each with advantages and disadvantages. Thus, researchers have increasingly combined a mix of data sources to achieve their research goals ( Greifinger, 2007 ). We reviewed medical files and computerized records, collected nares/oropharynx swab samples for microbiologic examination, and conducted interviews with inmates. Any study that uses self-reported information must address the possibility of under-reporting or over-reporting due to issues such as inaccurate or untruthful responses or misinterpretation of the questions ( Fox et al., 2011 ; Harrison, 1997 ; Singer, 1978 ; Stephenson et al., 2006 ). For example, inmates may be reluctant to respond accurately to questions related to personal information such as drug use or involvement in physical fights for fear of being reported to prison authorities. Hence, whenever possible we compared data available from medical records with information obtained from inmate interviews. In general, agreement between information provided by the inmates and information abstracted from records was high for information available from both sources, but information from records was sometimes unavailable or difficult to locate. In addition, much of the data needed for our study was only available by self-report. Overall, the inmates appeared very open and willing to provide information. In fact, we found a number of duplicate interviews from inmates who enrolled more than once, making it possible to assess whether their responses were similar at different time points. In other instances, inmates may have no interest in participating or may refuse certain procedures. In our study, for example, some inmates expressed concerns that the nasal and oropharyngeal samples being obtained were actually contaminating them.

Maintain inmate’s privacy

It is vital to carefully consider privacy and inmates’ rights, as they may feel coerced to participate or fear that their information will be shared with others. To alleviate such concerns, we worked to establish a positive rapport with the inmate population to earn their trust and respect. We requested that the interviews be conducted in private, without the presence of COs or other inmates, to reassure them that our research team was not affiliated with the correctional system and that no individual information from the research study would be reported to the Department of Corrections or a third party ( Fox et al., 2011 ; Noaks, Wincup & ebrary, 2004 ; O’Brien & Bates, 2003 ; Patenaude, 2004 ; Quina et al., 2007 ). To address these concerns, we provided clear and accurate information and obtained a Certificate of Confidentiality from the National Institutes of Health ( ) to help protect inmate privacy. Using these strategies, we were able to attain a recruitment rate of 90.6% in the male and 81.6% in the female maximum security prisons, a rate higher than has been previously reported ( Fox et al., 2011 ; Moser et al., 2004 ; Peterson, Braiker, Polich & Rand Corporation, 1981 ; Struckman-Johnson, Struckman-Johnson, Rucker, Bumby & Donaldson, 1996 ).

The purpose of this article was to describe some of the challenges and solutions derived from the development and implementation of our research study in two maximum security prisons. Although not all prisons have the same issues and policies, many of the challenges we faced are likely to resonate with others. Researchers must not underestimate the amount of time and preparation required for approval from the IRB and Department of Corrections as well as access into the correctional facilities. Once granted access, it is crucial for researchers to establish and maintain a positive relationship with the COs and inmates, to understand rules and security issues to navigate swiftly through the prison system for data collection, and to consider all limitations and obstacles throughout the process. Such strategies have proven successful in establishing and maintaining a high rate of study participation and high-quality data collection in this challenging research setting.

  • Appelbaum KL. Correctional mental health research: Opportunities and barriers. Journal of Correctional Health Care. 2008; 14 (4):269–277. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Byrne MW. Conducting research as a visiting scientist in a women’s prison. Journal of Professional Nursing. 2005; 21 (4):223–230. doi:S8755-7223(05)00073-6 [pii] 10.1016/j.profnurs.2005.05.001. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Fox K, Zambrana K, Lane J. Multivariate comparison of male and female adolescent substance abusers with accompanying legal problems. Journal of Criminal Justice Education. 2011; 22 (2):304–327. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Greifinger R. Public health behind bars. Vol. XVI. New York, NY: Springer; 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Harrison L. The validity of self-reported drug use in survey research: An overview and critique of research methods. NIDA Research Monograph. 1997; 167 :17–36. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Innes CA, Everett RS. Factors and conditions infuencing the use of research by the criminal justice system. Western Criminologgy. 2008; 9 (1):49–58. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Moser DJ, Arndt S, Kanz JE, Benjamin ML, Bayless JD, Reese RL, et al. Coercion and informed consent in research involving prisoners. Comprehensive Psychiatry. 2004; 45 (1):1–9. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Noaks L, Wincup E, ebrary . Vol. Introducing qualitative methods. London: SAGE; 2004. Criminological research: Understanding qualitative methods. [ Google Scholar ]
  • O’Brien P, Bates R. Negotiating the waves: Challenges of conducting in-prison and follow-up research with women. Affilia. 2003; 18 (2):210–225. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Patenaude AL. No promises, but i’m willing to listen and tell what i hear: Conducting qualitative research among prison inmates and staff. The Prison Journal. 2004; 84 (4 suppl):69S–91S. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Peterson MA, Braiker HB, Polich SM Rand Corporation. Who commits crimes: A survey of prison inmates. Cambridge, Mass: Oelgeschlager, Gunn & Hain; 1981. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Quina K, Garis AV, Stevenson J, Garrido M, Brown J, Richman R, et al. Through the bullet-proof glass: Conducting research in prison settings. Journal of Trauma and Dissociation. 2007; 8 (2):123–139. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Singer S. Comment on alleged overreporting. Criminology. 1978; 16 (1):99–103. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Stephenson BL, Wohl DA, McKaig R, Golin CE, Shain L, Adamian M, et al. Sexual behaviours of HIV-seropositive men and women following release from prison. International Journal of STD & AIDS. 2006; 17 (2):103–108. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Struckman-Johnson C, Struckman-Johnson D, Rucker L, Bumby K, Donaldson S. Sexual coercion reported by men and women in prison. The Journal of Sex Research. 1996; 33 (1):67–76. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Trulsona CR, Marquartb JW, Mullingsb JL. Breaking in: Gaining entry to prisons and other hard-to-access criminal justice organizations. Journal of Criminal Justice Education. 2004; 15 (2):451–478. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Vanderhoff H, Jeglic EL, Donovick PJ. Neuropsychological assessment in prisons: Ethical and practical challenges. Journal of Correctional Health Care. 2011; 17 (1):51–60. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Wakai S, Shelton D, Trestman RL, Kesten K. Conducting research in corrections: Challenges and solutions. Behavioral Sciences & the Law. 2009; 27 (5):743–752. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Walmsley R. World prison population list. 2009 Retrieved from…/wppl-8th_41.pdf .
  • Welsh WN, Zajac G. Building an effective research partnership between a university and a state correctional agency: Assessment of drug treatment in Pennsylvania prisons. The Prison Journal. 2004; 84 (2):143–170. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Search Menu
  • Advance articles
  • Author Guidelines
  • Submission Site
  • About Social Work Research
  • National Association of Social Workers
  • Editorial Board
  • Advertising and Corporate Services
  • Journals Career Network
  • Self-Archiving Policy
  • Dispatch Dates
  • Journals on Oxford Academic
  • Books on Oxford Academic

Browse issues

Issue Cover

Cover image

issue cover

Volume 48, Issue 1, March 2024

Guns and the culture of violence in america.

  • View article

The Value of Social Work to Health, Health Systems, and Interprofessional Teams: A Scoping Review

Path analysis of factors related to burnout for campus-based victim advocates, caregiving and obesity among black american adults, measuring afrocentrism: a review of existing instruments, correction to: the value of social work to health, health systems, and interprofessional teams: a scoping review, email alerts.

  • Recommend to your Library


National Association of Social Workers

  • Online ISSN 1545-6838
  • Print ISSN 1070-5309
  • Copyright © 2024 National Association of Social Workers
  • 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

  • Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
  • Cookie settings
  • Cookie policy
  • Privacy policy
  • Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

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

  • How We Do Our Work
  • COVID-19 Criminal Justice Responses Tracker
  • Publications
  • CJI Newsletter
  • Annual Reports

Each year, CJI plans, facilitates, and hosts the Institutional Corrections Research Network (ICRN) / National Corrections Reporting Program (NCRP) Annual Meeting, sponsored by the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) and the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS).

The meeting brings together corrections researchers from state agencies and federal partners to share information about data analysis tools and internal research. Participants generally include data suppliers to NCRP, members of ICRN, and staff from Abt Associates, NIC, BJS, and CJI.

The goals of this annual meeting are to:

  • Provide recommendations for a national research agenda and to assist the corrections field in further developing infrastructure to have high-quality data and share it through national partnerships; and
  • Further the work of the corrections field in its understanding and application of research by bringing together agency-based researchers to discuss issues and share insights on research conducted within agencies that operate correctional institutions.

2021 ICRN Conference 

The eighth annual meeting took place virtually on May 25, 2021, featuring presentations from member jurisdictions regarding various topics related to data and research. Presentations included:

  • Welcome: Michael Kane, CJI; Danielle Kaeble, Bureau of Justice Statistics; Ann Carson, Bureau of Justice Statistics; Shaina Vanek, National Institute of Corrections
  • National Corrections Reporting Program Data: Melissa Nadel and Walter Campbell, Abt Associates
  • Updated Assaults Model: Eric Ballenger, Indiana Department of Corrections
  • Unpacking Recidivism: Tama Celi, Virginia Department of Corrections
  • Predicted Probability of Recidivism Model: Alejandra Livingston, Nevada Department of Corrections

View the full 2021 agenda here.  

2020 ICRN Conference 

The seventh annual meeting took place virtually on June 12, 2020, featuring presentations from member jurisdictions regarding their use of data and research in corrections department responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. The group also heard from BJS on recent and upcoming data collection efforts. Additional virtual meetings may take place.


  • Proposed BJS Data Collection on COVID‐19 in State and Federal Prisons
  • Colorado Department of Corrections (presented by Morgan Jackson)
  • Hawaii Department of Public Safety (presented by George King)
  • Idaho Department of Correction – Idaho’s Research Plan (presented by Janeena White)
  • Indiana Department of Correction – COVID-19 Data Initiatives (presented by Sarah Schelle)
  • Pennsylvania – Huntingdon Confirmed and Suspected Positive COVID‐19 Cases (presented by Bret Bucklen)
  • Virginia Department of Corrections – Research During COVID-19 and Expanded Survey Questions (presented by Tama Celi)

2019 ICRN Conference Summary

The seventh annual data providers meeting took place at the Robert A. Young (RAY) Federal Building St. Louis, Missouri on September 19 and 20, 2019.

The meeting began with a presentation from Anne Precythe, director at the Missouri Department of Corrections, that highlighted the importance of using risk data to drive decision-making. Director Precythe’s presentation was followed by presentations on research studies using NCRP and CES data by Abt Associates, and the current and future plans at BJS by Danielle Kaeble (BJS). The introductory presentations were followed by plenary sessions on exploring recidivism and research in corrections. These sessions were followed by breakout sessions and small group discussions about topics including technical violations, classification assessments, restrictive housing, and NCRP data collection and results. Throughout the day, participants had the opportunity to informally network, discuss the dynamic relationship between criminal justice policy and data, and participate in discussions on research and performance management efforts across states.

The second day began with another round of breakout sessions on topics including BJS publications, parole supervision, the NCRP analysis tool, the National Institute of Justice Correction’s Portfolio and new Corrections Strategic Research Plan, hate crimes, and sex offenses, and educational strategies in corrections. Participants later had an opportunity to listen in on upcoming BJS initiatives. The meeting ended with a discussion of key points, lessons learned, and action steps for moving forward.

Read the full 2019 ICRN Meeting Summary

  • Past, Present, and Future of NCRP Research (Ryan Kling, Abt Associates)
  • The Impact of Recent and Cumulative Conditions of Confinement on Recidivism (Brian R. Kowalski, Ph. D., Bureau of Research and Evaluation, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction)
  • Using Prison Days and Total Costs as an Alternative to Return to Prison Measures (Mark Harris, Ph. D., Research Manager, Wyoming Department of Corrections; Ethan Harris, MS, Statistics Instructor, Casper College)
  • Explaining Sex Offender Recidivism: Accounting for differences in correctional supervision (Zach Baumgart, Carisa Bergner, and Megan Jones, Wisconsin Department of Corrections)
  • Idaho Prison Compstat (Janeena White, Idaho Department of Correction)
  • Pracademic Research: Engaging Corrections Practitioners in Research Through Innovation and Experimentation (Kristofer Bret Bucklen, Ph. D., Director of Planning, Research, and Statistics, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections)
  • The Technicalities of Technical Violations (Clarissa Dias, Ph. D., Senior Research Analyst; Maria Stephenson, Research Development Manager; Georgia Department of Community Supervision)
  • The Effect of Technical Violation Revocations on Serious Criminal Recidivism (Gerry Gaes, William Rhodes, Abt Associates)
  • The Development and Validation of the Minnesota Severe and Frequent Estimate for Discipline (MnSafeD) (Grant Duwe, Director of Research and Evaluation, Minnesota Department of Corrections)
  • NCRP for Newcomers (Tom Rich, Mike Shively, Abt Associates)
  • The Path to Eliminating Restrictive Housing in Delaware (Philisa Weidlein-Crist, Lead Data Analyst; Miranda Mal, RNR Planner; Delaware Department of Correction)
  • Location, Location, Location: What the NCRP tells us about where prisoners serve their sentence, where they’re from, and where they reoffend (Melissa Nadel, Ph. D.; Walter Campbell, Ph. D.; Abt Associates)
  • Research Capacity within Department of Corrections and Local/Regional Jails (Dr. Hefang Lin, Research Statistician, Orange County Corrections; Tama S. Celi, Ph. D., Chief of Research, Policy, and Planning, Virginia Department of Corrections)
  • Research Update from BJS: Source and Use of Firearms Involved in Crimes and Time Served in State Prison, 2016 (Danielle Kaeble, BJS Statistician)
  • Massachusetts Parole Board: PRO Supervision (Gina Papagiorgakis, Director of Research and Planning, Massachusetts State Parole) 
  • The New On-Line NCRP Data Analysis Tool (Tom Rich, Abt Associates)
  • Corrections Research at NIJ: Providing Guidance in a Time of Change (Eric Martin, Social Science Analyst; David Mulhausen, Ph. D., Director of the National Institute of Justice; Chris Tillery, Office of Director, Office of Research, Evaluation, and Technology) 
  • Hate Crimes and Female Sex Offenders: Exploring the NCRP’s Unique Capabilities for Research on Rare and Specialized Crime Types (Christopher Cutler, Melissa Nadel, Michael Shively, Ryan Kling; Abt Associates)
  • Correctional Education Study Findings: FY2013 Releases (Tama Celi, Ph. D., Yan Jin, MS; Virginia Department of Corrections)

Thank you for visiting 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
  • Published: 27 July 2023

Correction: Foreskin restorers: insights into motivations, successes, challenges, and experiences with medical and mental health professionals – an abridged summary of key findings

  • Tim Hammond   ORCID: 1 ,
  • Lauren M. Sardi   ORCID: 2 ,
  • William A. Jellison 2 ,
  • Ryan McAllister   ORCID: 1 ,
  • Ben Snyder 3 &
  • Mohamed A. B. Fahmy   ORCID: 4  

International Journal of Impotence Research volume  36 ,  page 103 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

299 Accesses

1 Citations

Metrics details

  • Human behaviour
  • Urinary tract

The Original Article was published on 30 March 2023

Correction to: International Journal of Impotence Research (2023) 35:309–322 , published online 30 March 2023

The first sentence of the abstract has been corrected. Please find the corrected text below.

Demographically diverse surveys in the United States suggest that 10–15% of non-voluntarily circumcised American males wish that they had not been circumcised [1, 2]. Similar data are unavailable in other countries. An unknown proportion of circumcised males experience acute circumcision-related distress; some attempt to regain a sense of bodily integrity through non-surgical foreskin restoration.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Independent Researcher, Your Sexual Medicine Journal

Tim Hammond & Ryan McAllister

Quinnipiac University, Hamden, CT, USA

Lauren M. Sardi & William A. Jellison

Certified Sex Therapist, Minneapolis, MN, USA

Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt

Mohamed A. B. Fahmy

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tim Hammond .

Additional information

The original article can be found online at .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Hammond, T., Sardi, L.M., Jellison, W.A. et al. Correction: Foreskin restorers: insights into motivations, successes, challenges, and experiences with medical and mental health professionals – an abridged summary of key findings. Int J Impot Res 36 , 103 (2024).

Download citation

Published : 27 July 2023

Issue Date : February 2024


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

This article is cited by

From intimate exams to ritual nicking: interpreting nonconsensual medicalized genital procedures as sexual boundary violations.

  • Max Buckler
  • Brian D. Earp

Current Sexual Health Reports (2023)

Quick links

  • Explore articles by subject
  • Guide to authors
  • Editorial policies

summary of correction in research


  1. Summary of the steps involved in the proposed correction method

    summary of correction in research

  2. Meriter plan of correction

    summary of correction in research

  3. Correctional Administration 2 Non-institutional correction

    summary of correction in research

  4. Summary error correction activity

    summary of correction in research

  5. How to Write a Summary of a Research Paper

    summary of correction in research

  6. Summary of advantages and disadvantages of each correction technique (P

    summary of correction in research


  1. Master essential Modifiers theory for GMAT Sentence Correction questions

  2. Research basics

  3. Research Methods: Writing a Literature Review

  4. Research Methods

  5. Purpose of Research: Explanatory Research

  6. What to avoid in writing the methodology section of your research


  1. How to Write a Conclusion for Research Papers (with Examples)

    When working on how to conclude a research paper, remember to stick to summarizing and interpreting existing content. The research paper conclusion serves the following purposes: 1. Warn readers of the possible consequences of not attending to the problem. Recommend specific course (s) of action.

  2. Self-correction in science: The diagnostic and integrative motives for

    Rather, it is a plausible account of self-correction put forth that differs in key respects from the formal vision of the metascientists. Moreover, it is an account that in accord with research in STS that has emphasized the roles of tacit knowledge, interpretation, trust, and social negotiation in research.

  3. Interpretation of correlations in clinical research

    Critically analyzing research is a key skill in evidence-based practice and requires knowledge of research methods, results interpretation, and applications, all of which rely on a foundation based in statistics. ... A Bonferroni correction is a conservative correction for multiple comparisons that reduces the Type 1 error, 22 though less ...

  4. Corrections, retractions and updates to published articles

    Correct the online article. Issue a separate correction notice electronically linked back to the corrected version. Add a footnote to the article displaying the electronic link to the correction notice. Paginate and make available the correction notice in the online issue of the journal. Make the correction notice free to view.

  5. How To Write A Research Summary

    So, follow the steps below to write a research summary that sticks. 1. Read the parent paper thoroughly. You should go through the research paper thoroughly multiple times to ensure that you have a complete understanding of its contents. A 3-stage reading process helps.

  6. A meta-analysis of correction effects in science-relevant ...

    Whether a correction is congenial to the recipient's attitudes or beliefs may also affect the success of corrections of science-relevant information 49.A 2020 meta-analytic review of political ...

  7. Perspective on reducing errors in research

    Reducing errors in research. In their 2017 editorial Correcting the Medical Literature: "To Err Is Human, to Correct Divine", Christiansen and Flanagin urged researchers who discover errors to report them [ 7 ]. That step, though extremely important, will only help mitigate the effects of discovered errors on the published medical literature.

  8. Putting the Self in Self-Correction: Findings From the Loss-of

    Self-correction could help defuse some of this conflict. A research culture in which individual self-corrections are the default reaction to errors or misinterpretations could raise awareness that mistakes are a routine part of science and help separate researchers' identities from specific findings.

  9. 17

    Summary. While learning, students make a lot of errors, so an important goal of education research is to discover the most effective techniques for correcting their errors. ... The correction of errors committed with high confidence. Metacognition and Learning, 1 (1), 69 ... Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 3 (3), 222 ...

  10. Error correction, revision, and learning

    His research interests include the effectiveness of grammar instruction and correction and applications of research and theory in linguistics and cognitive psychology to second language acquisition. His current research is primarily concerned with developing a processing-based account of language development, first and second.

  11. Correcting the Published Literature

    A competing view by Ioannidis argues that self-correction is not guaranteed but dependent on historical, disciplinary, and societal forces that impact replication of findings. In the current environment of scholarly research, replication studies may not be funded, advance one's career, or find a suitable publisher.

  12. Correction: Review: a comprehensive summary of a decade ...

    Correction: Review: a comprehensive summary of a decade development of the recombinase polymerase amplification Analyst. 2020 Mar 2;145(5):1950-1960. doi: 10.1039/c9an90127b. ... Genecology Research Centre, School of Science and Engineering, University of the Sunshine Coast, ...


    of publications and facilitate academic research considerably. Please base your references on the examples below. References that don't adhere to this style will be reformatted by Springer. You should therefore check your references thoroughly when you receive the final pdf of your paper. The reference section must be complete.

  14. Research on Error Correction

    By contrast, the research synthesis and meta-analysis by Lyster and Saito (2010), which looked separately into the effects of prompts, recasts and explicit correction, yielded significantly larger effects sizes for output-pushing feedback in comparison to input-providing correction in a classroom setting.

  15. Research Trends of Written Corrective Feedback in L2 Writing: A

    The hot research topics in recent 20 years and emerging trends were showed. It was found that the research of written corrective feedback has entered a period of rapid development after the accumulation of basic knowledge in the early stage. ... In summary, the research on written corrective feedback in second language writing will still ...

  16. Correction in Historical Perspective

    CORRECTION IN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE. A study of the changes that have occurred in our ideas of how to deal with offenders against the criminal law brings us into contact with one of the most fascinating and challenging aspects of social history, the history of punishment. It is, by and large, a sordid history; a record of our slow progress in ...

  17. Research in corrections

    Juvenile Justice Research-to-Practice Implementation Resources (2017) The Juvenile Justice Research-to-Practice Implementation Resources provide juvenile justice agency managers, staff, and other practitioners with co. The systematic investigation into and study of corrections in order to establish facts and reach new conclusions.

  18. Correction: Strategies to improve care for older adults who present to

    Correction; Open access; Published: 07 March 2024; Correction: Strategies to improve care for older adults who present to the emergency department: a systematic review. Luke Testa 1, Lieke Richardson 1, Colleen Cheek 1, Theresa Hensel 1,2, Elizabeth Austin 1, Mariam Safi 1,3,4, Natália Ransolin 1,5, Ann Carrigan 1, Janet Long 1, Karen ...

  19. Research Paper Summary: How to Write a Summary of a Research ...

    A summary must be coherent and cogent and should make sense as a stand-alone piece of writing. It is typically 5% to 10% of the length of the original paper; however, the length depends on the length and complexity of the article and the purpose of the summary. Accordingly, a summary can be several paragraphs or pages, a single paragraph, or ...

  20. PDF Gender-Responsive Strategies: Research, Practice, and Guiding

    sectors of corrections and worked with a Practitioner Advisory Group throughout the project. Eventually, the project's goals expanded from a summary of research and practice to include the development of guiding principles to inform correctional policy and practice for the next decade. In undertaking this large effort, the NIC team

  21. Challenges and Strategies for Research in Prisons

    Know the system. By nature of its mission, The Department of Corrections must maintain a controlled, secure setting (Wakai et al., 2009).As part of the National Institute of Justice's appraisal action aimed at developing more effective decision tools, however, efforts are being made to develop cooperative relationships with research institutions (Welsh & Zajac, 2004).

  22. Well-Being Interventions for Correctional Officers in a Prison Setting

    Summary scores are reported in Table 1, and full details of the quality assessment can be found in Supplemental Appendix 1 (available in the online version of this article). ... and he is the recipient of the 2004 and 2017 International Corrections and Prisons Association Research Awards. Most recently, he has been conducting a program of ...

  23. PDF A Summary of Research, Practice, and Guiding Principles for Women Offenders

    Multidisciplinary research and theory on women's lives that have significant implications for managing women in the criminal justice system. GENDER-RESPONSIVE STRATEGIES MAY 2005 FOR WOMEN OFFENDERS U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Corrections FROM THE DIRECTOR This is the first in a series of bul-letins to address the needs of

  24. Volume 48 Issue 1

    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

  25. Icrn

    Each year, CJI plans, facilitates, and hosts the Institutional Corrections Research Network (ICRN) / National Corrections Reporting Program (NCRP) Annual Meeting, sponsored by the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) and the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). The meeting brings together corrections researchers from state agencies and federal partners to share information about data ...

  26. Techniques for automatically correcting words in text

    The Unixspellprogram is one example of a program that employs a hash table for fast dictionary lookup. Other standard search techniques, such as tries [Knuth 1973], frequency- ordered binary search trees [Knuth 1973], and finite-state automata [Aho and Corasick 1975], have been used to reduce dictionary search time.

  27. Correction: Foreskin restorers: insights into motivations, successes

    Correction: Foreskin restorers: insights into motivations, successes, challenges, and experiences with medical and mental health professionals - an abridged summary of key findings

  28. PDF Self-correction Profiles of L2 English Learners: A Longitudinal ...

    correction types studied in this research provide a unique perspective on student self-correction. This article includes description and analysis of all self-corrections made during ... summary of L2 self-correction research noted lower-proficiency students focus on linguistic forms, while more advanced students focus on content and discourse ...

  29. Program Structure and Effective Correctional Practices

    Program Structure and Effective Correctional Practices - A Summary of the CaVIC (Canadian Volunteers in Corrections) Research (From Effective Correctional Treatment, P 441-463, 1980, Robert R Ross and Paul Gendreau, ed. - See NCJ-73342) NCJ Number. 73354. Author(s) D A Andrews; J J Kiessling.

  30. Summary of Corrections

    Summary of Corrections_Final-1 (1) - Read online for free.