Research 101

An abstract is a valuable tool used by researchers to communicate the most important parts of their research, including the methodology and the results (in overview form). When you are submitting your idea or research to be published in a paper, this is what you will submit to prove why and how your research is relevant to the paper’s theme and your field of study more broadly. 

In summary, an abstract should be “a stand alone summary of a research project.”

An abstract is how journal/article reviewers determine if your research is fitting and appropriate for the contents and/or nature of the journal you’re submitting to - so, you want to use this brief summary to showcase why your research is important and why it should be considered for inclusion in that particular journal.

For an academic paper, or a journal of quite high esteem, the abstract submission “must provide sufficient information to demonstrate the significance of the research,” as well as how it aligns with the theme of the journal/the edition, and how it will add value to the publication.  

A good abstract needs to be informative yet concise, compelling yet understandable to both experts and non-experts alike. Some key features include:

• • Title: what is your research about? Do not be misleading or vague - pitch your research right from the get go! Make sure it is engaging. 

  • Background Information: why was this research conducted - think of this as your rationale statement. Keep in mind, you want experts and non-experts to understand the scope and contents of your work, so keep it accessible.

  • Aim: what did your research/study set out to investigate specifically, and what are the gaps in the existing literature that informed your research?

  • Method: how did you conduct the research - what methods of data collection, sampling, research etc. were used? 

  • Results: what was the key takeaway of your research? This should be a very high-level summary (you want them to read more!)

  • Conclusion: finish with a compelling statement that highlights the implications of your research, and what it could mean for the field and/or further studies. 

Make sure you edit out any unnecessary details or extra words to make it sharp, snappy and engaging - you want the reader to want to continue reading, not to get bored! 

A journal or article’s status as “peer reviewed" means that a number of evaluations, critical analysis and scrutinisation has been undertaken by other academics that aren’t the authors of the paper - quite literally, their peers have assessed their work to ensure it is credible and truthful.

For example, academics who wish to publish their work must submit it for assessment before it can be published. This includes theses, conference papers, etc. 

Peer review helps ensure the scholarly standards and academic rigour of the journal is upheld in all their publication, helping maintain the journal’s reputation.

Reviewers are those that have been tasked with the job because they are an expert in the field!

Those that undertake the review provide comments and feedback to authors to help improve the work, the tone, the analysis or the strength of the research. The goal is improvement, not rejection!

In your own research, you should look for articles that are marked as peer reviewed and from reputable journals to make sure you are partaking in scholarly research that is underpinned by the academic principles of integrity and authenticity!

The current peer review process has several flaws. Many issues arise in the structure of the peer review process. In order to favour the publication of the best/highest quality information and research, the peer review process should be as unbiased and objective as possible.

However, the process can contribute to the promotion of an ‘in-crowd’, barring access to outsiders and juniors in the field. New methods and concepts can easily be ignored or overlooked.

The peer review process does not consider outside interests or new perspectives, focusing on research questions which may not have greater societal importance.

There is limited peer-reviewed research that examines the effectiveness of the peer review process, or considers strategies to improve the process.

Papers are initially submitted to a journal’s Editor-In-Chief, for initial assessment of whether the paper should be forwarded for further review or rejected immediately. There are no dispute mechanisms if a submission is refused, which may contribute to important research findings being overlooked. 

There is often a lack of transparency surrounding how manuscripts are accepted and rejected, often due to the internal policies of a reviewer which are not specified to the author. 

Journals may ask researchers to nominate preferred reviewers. While it is true that some people may be inclined to suggest reviewers who will respond favourably to their work, leading to bias, using a system of preferred reviewers can also be an important part of getting research from niche areas into journals, especially the larger, more prestigious journals that cover a lot of topics. 

Some niche areas of research have certain procedures or limitations that may differ from more mainstream areas of research. This can sometimes lead to articles from these areas to not be considered for publication if they are only reviewed by researchers from mainstream areas who do not know as much about the area. So, while there is some caution around selecting reviewers, it can, depending on the field, be very beneficial - and even necessary!

Many suggestions have been proposed to fix the flaws of the peer review process. These include complete overhauls of the current process, and adjustment to different steps of the process. 

One example is a two-sided market system, with ‘buyers’ and ‘sellers’. Authors would post their articles on the peer review market and reviewers would collect credit points for ratings on different aspects of the paper. The process would be transparent and professionalised, removing hidden cliques. 

Another example is improving transparency and incorporating more processes for appeals/disputes. If a manuscript is rejected, the journal should clearly state the reasoning, especially if it is due to a policy or an author receiving conflicting/contradictory feedback. There also should be a dispute procedure process, allowing authors to explain why their manuscript would be suitable for publication, preventing important research from being overlooked.