dissemination and critical evaluation of research

Question 1

descriptive/qualitative research

Answer 1

inform reader of groups studied and characteristics reported

eg. the attitudes of physicians to the professional functions of dieticians
should be concise but informative of nature of investigation
below title – names of investigator(s) and affiliations

Question 2

Abstract

Answer 2

short (< 250 words) description of the report
gives overview/summary
in a few journals appears at end of article as Summary
should provide enough details for reader to decide if article of interest
can be difficult to write
often write last

should include:
brief statement of previous finding that led to the study
hypothesis and/or aim of study
methods – eg. subjects, apparatus, procedures
- very briefly
4. description of what found and how interpreted
should be quantitative
-magnitude of effect and statistical significance
5. what concluded

Question 3

title and abstract should contain important key words for literature retrieval
some journals ask for list of 8 – 10 keywords to put after abstract
used for indexing - eg. PubMed – major subject headings

Answer 3

g

Question 4

Introduction

Answer 4

similar to planning stages of research
good intro sets stage for hypotheses being tested
discusses theoretical background of the problem investigated
evaluates relevant previous research
Link between past and present

cannot review all aspects of literature
Reviews only aspects directly relevant
provides logical sequence in which hypotheses derived
leads logically to narrow/specific aims or hypotheses
final paragraph should state precise aims or hypotheses

Question 5

Methods

Answer 5

inform how investigation carried out
detailed enough for others to replicate
generally:
 Materials  - for most relevant or unique
where purchased or how prepared
 Subjects – who, how many, how selected
 Apparatus or tools – description of equipment, 	questionnaires, etc.
if important give manufacturer
if custom or novel give how to build
may include diagram

Procedure
- enough infor for other to replicate
may refer to previous publication (eg. “method of [ref]”) if gives complete procedure and followed without modifications
how subjects assigned, experimental procedures, how data collected, statistical treatments
should read like cookbook (though not “cooking” the experiment)

Question 6

Results

Answer 6

presents findings
draws attention to points of interest
not raw data or statistical calculations
use descriptive and inferential statistics to present summarized and analyzed data
graphs, tables, statistical outcomes
show or mention all data, not just those that support the hypothesis

Question 7

Discussion

Answer 7

restates aim(s) of investigation
discusses results with regard to aims or hypotheses
2 main things they need to discuss:

found what expected?

how results relate to previous research
one experiment doesn’t make or break theory, or effectiveness of a practice
connect findings with similar studies and underlying theory

if unexpected results, discuss possible reasons
but brief – avoid long discussions of possible reasons for outcome
points way for further problems to be solved

Question 8

Conclusion

Answer 8

summarizes main findings and interpretations
suggestions for further research
eg. implications for broader concepts that can be tested
ie. generalize to phenomena not directly tested
but reasonably (not too extreme or wildly speculative)

Question 9

References and appendices

Answer 9

References – lists all literature discussed or referred to in paper
allows reader to retrieve and evaluate sources
format depends on journal (described in “Instructions to authors”)
eg. with or without title
numbered sequentially in order of appearance, or referenced alphabetically by last name of first author

Question 10

STYLE OF RESEARCH PUBLICATIONS

Answer 10

Generally:
avoid long phrases or complicated sentences
short, simple more easily understood
quote only when need to convey precisely ideas of another researcher
otherwise put in own words (and reference source)
use past tense to describe results
4. use objective style, avoiding personal pronouns (old fashion way, can now use we found that…)
5. write to audience
if material specialized or difficult, explain clearly
be concise and clear
don’t introduce non-relevant issues or concepts
interesting but superfluous issues may distract and confuse
get others to proofread, give constructive criticism

Question 11

Appendices

Answer 11

– full descriptions of:
questionnaires or measuring instruments
raw data or statistical calculations

Question 12

THE PUBLICATION PROCESS

Answer 12

formal knowledge of profession disseminated and stored in journals, books, conference reports
published by professional associations, government departments, private companies/publishers
value of research negligible if not made public

Question 13

Prospective author:

Answer 13

1. selects appropriate professional or scientific journal
   may consider readership, journal impact factor
2. puts report in required format
3. sends completed manuscript to journal’s editor
   today usually online

Question 14

Editor

Answer 14

generally of high standing in scientific or professional area
may have board of editors to handle papers in different specialties
if judges article appropriate for journal sends to 2 or more referees

Question 15

Referees

Answer 15

independent scientists with expertise in the area
evaluate and give report, recommend to accept or not
may recommend additions or changes (ie. acceptable subject to revisions)
editor makes final deision
Can be sure articles in refereed journals have been scrutinized by experts
doesn’t guarantee truth of evidence or conclusions