Post 154. Exciting Note + Writing Journal Articles: Part 3. December 16, 2024
Dear Real Academics,
Feel free to skip around the newsletter and revisit it during the week.
Paid-subscribers, view the Paid Subscriber Space towards the end of the post.
Happy writing, productivity, and truth-seeking! — Maggie and the Team
Don’t miss out on future posts! Subscribe here:
Pic of the Week
Vines wrapped around a big tree on the FIU campus.
Exciting Note
I couldn’t resist. I was going to wait until next week, but just couldn’t. So, here it goes: My first book, Writing With Purpose, Peace, and Passion: A Guide to Sustaining Your Academic Writing, is now published and available on Amazon!
Within hours of its release, it had the #1 spot on Amazon’s “Hot New Releases” under the “Graduate School Guides” category —not sure how long-lived that is/was, but let’s keep it up by sharing it with others!
If you purchase it and find it helpful, please leave a good review and let others know about it. We’ll also be going through it in book club next year, so stay tuned!
Thank you for letting me share! Now…onto the Tip of the Week…
Tip of the Week
I am writing a series of journal article writing tips based on Paul Silvia’s “Chapter 6: Writing Journal Articles,” in How To Write A Lot: A Practical Guide to Productive Academic Writing.
This week (Part 3), I summarize my take-home points from Silvia’s discussion on results, discussions, and references.
(1) Know what to put in your Results.
Silvia (2017) points out some ideas about writing your results including:
Report only the results “that bear on your problem” (p. 86). In other words, don’t report every detailed result if it is not related to your problem.
I personally like to remind the reader of my research question(s) (I make it/them a heading) and then write about the results that address the question or questions.
Tell a story. Silvia states that, “Good result sections create a story” (p. 86). I find this point intriguing as it is much better to not just splash a bunch of data onto this section. Rather, thoughtfully present the results and show the reader what you found along the way— like a story.
Begin by reporting results and analysis that “inform the integrity of your study” (p. 86). For quantitative work, these could include descriptive statistics of your data, internal consistency of self-reported scales, interrater agreement, data reduction and treatment. For qualitative work, these could include triangulation, participant checks, ethical concerns, and researcher positionality.
Then “describe your analyses in a logical sequence” (p. 86). Silvia says this may look different in each study, but he suggests reporting your most interesting and important findings first and using tables and figures to organize information visually for the reader. As I stated previously, I like to use my research questions as headings, and then describe my analysis within those sections.
(2) Close with an interesting Discussion.
For me, discussion, like introductions are one of the most challenging sections to write. Silvia gives ideas of how to structure the discussion, which is rather helpful (and I add in my tips, of course!):
Begin with a brief overview of your problem and your findings.
I like this because it reminds your reader of the whole point of the paper as a whole. Reviewers and any reader will greatly appreciate this.
Discuss how the study informs the paper’s central problem, address limitation.
Here, I find it most helpful to write notes as I conduct my analysis. As I do so, I write down any thoughts and ideas that come to mind and write down my unexpected results and any challenges with my procedure. When I do this, I have no shortage of information to share with the reader in the discussion.
Close with how your study contributes to the literature.
This is where you should look back at your findings and show how they connect with other theories, past research, and future directions.
(3) Polish your References.
Silvia points out that references are basically you documenting the sources that influenced the ideas in your paper. He gives the following super helpful advice (with my comments on the side):
Be selective about who/what you reference.
Reference only what you’ve actually read. Too many people do not follow this rule, but it only shows lack of ethics and sloppiness. It can also get you in trouble because you may be misinterpreting the original source. In fact, I know when researchers who cite me didn’t read my article!
Don’t be sloppy. This is important. I’ve known reviewers who will look at references first to see how careful/serious the writer has been about their work. A sloppy reference list is a warning sign to sloppiness in other parts of thel research, including the analysis. You don’t want this perception.
Cite people you want reviewing you. This is helpful when it comes to tenure and promotion as well. This is also a reason you want to be careful that you are citing people well, having read their articles.
Cite yourself. I would agree with Silvia that this is not just about “self-promotion” but it helps others learn about your research.
Reference: Silvia, P. (2007). How to Write A Lot: A Practical Guide to Academic Writing. American Psychological Association.
In Closing…
Are you writing a journal article? If so, are any of these tips helpful?
I’d love to know! If you are able, please leave a comment. If not, please email me at inforealacademics@gmail.com
Get Writing Done This Month - Spring 2025 Calendar is Now Available!
Real Academic Events are designed to help you decrease your writing anxiety, increase your writing self-efficacy, and maintain your writing productivity.
If you like our work and want to share, consider giving someone a gift subscription: