Research Writing

Dr. Aradhna Malik

Vinod Gupta School of Management
Conclusion

2
 Purpose
([Link]
• “Presenting the last word on the issues you raised in your
paper
• Summarizing your thoughts & conveying the larger
significance of your study
• Identifying how a gap in the literature has been addressed
• Demonstrating the importance of your ideas
• Introducing possible new or expanded ways of thinking about
the research problem”

3
 General rules
([Link]
• “State your conclusions in clear, simple language. Restate the purpose of
your study, then state how your findings differ or support those of other
studies & why
• Do not simply reiterate your results or the discussion of your results.
Provide a synthesis of arguments presented in the paper to show how these
converge to address the research problem & the overall objectives of your
study”
• Indicate limitations of your study
• Tie in the research question, results and limitations of the study with
opportunities for future research

4
 Presenting the conclusion well
([Link]
• “If the argument or purpose of your paper is complex, you
may need to summarize the argument for your reader
• If, prior to your conclusion, you have not yet explained the
significance of your findings or if you are proceeding
inductively, use the end of your paper to describe your main
points & explain their significance
• Move from a detailed to a general level of consideration that
returns the topic to the context provided by the introduction
or within a new context that emerges from the data.”

5
 Developing a compelling conclusion
([Link]
• “If your essay deals with a contemporary problem, warn readers of
the possible consequences of not attending to the problem
• Recommend a specific course or courses of action that, if adopted,
could address a specific problem in practice or in the development
of new knowledge
• Cite a relevant quotation or expert opinion already noted in your
paper in order to lend authority to the conclusion
• Explain the consequences of your research in a way that elicits
action or demonstrates urgency in seeking change”

6
 Developing a compelling conclusion (Contd.)
([Link]
• Restate a key statistic, fact or visual image to emphasize the ultimate point
of your paper
• If your discipline encourages personal reflection, illustrate your concluding
point with a relevant narrative drawn from your own life experiences
• Return to an anecdote, an example, or a quotation that you presented in
your introduction, but add further insight derived from the findings of your
study; use your interpretation of results to recast it in new or important
ways
• Provide a ‘take-home’ message in the form of a strong, succinct statement
that you want the reader to remember about your study”

7
 Problems to avoid
([Link]
• “Failure to be concise
• Failure to comment on larger, more significant issues
• Failure to reveal problems & negative results
• Failure to provide a clear summary of what was learned
• Failure to match the objectives of your research”
• Apologizing for your work or the doubts you may have about your work
• New information: Lead the reader to new insights building on the
information provided through the course of the document. Do not provide
new information.

8
Thank you!

DR. ARADHNA MALIK 9

Research Writing

Dr. Aradhna Malik

Vinod Gupta School of Management
Research Writing

Dr. Aradhna Malik

Vinod Gupta School of Management
Academic integrity

12
Unethical Practices in Written
Communication
&
Implications for Intellectual
Property
 Codes & policies for research ethics
(Resnick, 2010, [Link] )
• Honesty
• Objectivity
• Integrity
• Carefulness
• Openness
• Respect for intellectual property
• Confidentiality
• Responsible publication
 Codes and policies (Contd.)
(Resnick, 2010, [Link]
• Responsible mentoring
• Respect for colleagues
• Social responsibility
• Non discrimination
• Competence
• Legality
• Care for living beings
• Protection of human subjects
 Checklist for ethical dilemmas (Resnick, 2010)
• “Which choice could stand up to further publicity and scrutiny?
• Which choice could you not live with or be unable to defend?
• Think of the wisest person you know. What would s/he do in
such a situation?
• Which choice would be the most just, fair, or responsible?
• Which choice will probably have the best overall
consequences?”
 Management of Information (Purdue OWL)
“Words are very powerful. Therefore, it is
important to use them truthfully, accurately, and
responsibly. Statements should be accurate both in
terms of how information is managed and how it is
credited.”
 Mismanagement of Information (Purdue OWL)

“Ethical management of information requires both

factual and accurate presentation. Individuals who
alter results by reporting truthful but incomplete
data that will skew the findings, are mismanaging
information.”
“Ethical writing requires that, with access to
the same information and knowledge, others
may reasonably reach the same conclusions as
the writer.” (Purdue OWL)
 Academic Misconduct
• “Plagiarism (Latin:plagiarus= plundered; from plagium= kidnapping). Plagiarism is
the kidnapping of another’s words.” (Sutherland-Smith, 2009)
• “Plagiarism means to take and use another person’s ideas and or manner of
expressing them and to pass them off as one’s own by failing to give appropriate
acknowledgement. This includes material from any source, staff, students or the
Internet – published and un-published works.” (Sutherland-Smith, 2009)
• Plagiarism is the act of “...tak[ing] (borrow[ing], st[ealing], misappropriat[ing],
pass[ing] off) an ‘object’ (language/ [style of expression], work, computer images,
choreography, graphics) from a source (books, journals, Web, [published or
unpublished document]) by an agent (student, person, academic) without
adequate acknowledgement with or without intention to deceive.” (Sutherland-Smith,
2009)
 Academic Misconduct (Contd.)
• Copying: Using someone else’s work and not acknowledging the person

• Cheating: Fabrication of data, procedures etc.

• Contract cheating: Having someone else do your work for you. (Lancaster &
Clarke, 2008 in Sutherland-Smith, 2009)

• Patchwriting: is "copying from a source text and then deleting some words,
altering grammatical structures, or plugging in one-for-one synonym-
substitutes."
(Howard, 1993 quoted on [Link]
 An example of patchwriting
• Because women's wages often continue to reflect the fiction that men earn the family wage,
single mothers rarely earn enough to support themselves and their children adequately. And
because work is still organized around the assumption that mothers stay home with children, even
though few mothers can afford to do so, child-care facilities in the United States remain woefully
inadequate.

• Since women's wages often continue to reflect the mistaken notion that men are the main wage
earners in the family, single mothers rarely make enough to support themselves and their children
very well. Also, because work is still based on the assumption that mothers stay home with
children, facilities for child care remain woefully inadequate in the United States.

Source: [Link]
 Other forms of plagiarism
(Purdue OWL)
• “Claiming originality regarding material copied directly from
outside sources. In other words, deliberately failing to cite
sources.
• Improperly documenting quoted, paraphrased or summarized
source material.
• Extending the length of a bibliography to meet project
requirements by including sources not used in your research or
making them up all together”
 Common forms of contract cheating
(Purdue OWL)

• “Purchasing an essay or paper from a "dealer" on the

Internet, friends, hostels or anywhere else and calling it
your own.
• Borrowing another author’s paper from a previous
assignment and calling it your own.
• Having someone else do your work, for free or for hire.
Agreeing to do someone else's work is equally wrong”
 Other forms of academic misconduct
(Purdue OWL)
• “Killing two birds with one stone. Recycling an essay or paper
written for one assignment by using it in another assignment
requiring the same or similar material

• Receiving help from other authors on an assignment and turning

it in under your own name as individual work

• Collectively researching and writing a paper with other authors

and each turning in copies for different purposes claiming it as
individual work”
 Causes of Academic Misconduct
• Lack of proficiency in a language
• Perception that big words and complicated flowery
language will leave a good impression about the author
• Lack of expertise
• Lack of awareness
• Laziness
• Fear of failure
 Causes of Academic Misconduct (Contd.)
• Peer pressure
• Egotism and the drive for self enhancement
• Pressure to perform
• Continuous assessment/ numerous assessments
• Lack of clear policies to prevent/ penalize unethical
practices
 Fact about plagiarism

Plagiarism is always intentional: Writers always

know what they are doing and why they are doing
it. (Sutherland-Smith, 2009)
 Dealing with uncertainty regarding the
assignment of credit (Purdue OWL)

• “If you copy something verbatim from another source,

put double quotation marks around the words and cite
the source.

• If you borrow ideas, arguments, data, or other

information from another source, cite the source even
if you put the material in your own words.”
 Plagiarism Caution Checklist (Purdue OWL)
• “Are all quotations surrounded by quotation marks?
• Are single and double quotation marks properly used in quotations
within quotations?
• Are ellipses and brackets included in quotations where words have
been deleted or comments added?
• Are any quotations, paraphrases or summaries attributed to the
wrong author? Are any missing an attribution completely?”
 Plagiarism Caution Checklist (Contd.)
(Purdue OWL)

• “Are your paraphrases worded significantly differently than the

original?
• Are your summaries written in your own voice?
• Are all your source citations included in your bibliography or
sources cited page?
• Are the titles, page numbers and dates in your documentation
correct?”
 Consequences of academic misconduct
• Credibility
• Reputation
• Professional implications
• Legal implications
• Cost to funding agencies
• Cost to academia
– Future knowledge creation
– Professional careers of future scholars
• Cost to society
 Avoiding Academic Misconduct
• Do your own work
• Get into the habit of acknowledging the original author every time
• Establish your own voice
• Do your research carefully
• Report results accurately
• Keep records of all your work and copies of all your drafts
References for slides on academic integrity
• Purdue Online Writing Lab
• Eckstein, M. A. (2003). Combating academic fraud:
Toward a culture of integrity. International Institute for
Educational Planning, UNESCO.
• Sutherland-Smith, W. (2009). Plagiarism: ethical issues
in the learning and teaching relationship. Unpublished
powerpoint presentation received through personal
communication.
 Similarity Detection Software
• [Link]
Thank you!

DR. ARADHNA MALIK 36

 Using
&
Acknowledging Sources

37
 Points of confusion (Purdue OWL)
• “Agreeing with the material that someone else wrote does not
make it your own.
• Rearranging words from someone else's prose does not change
the fact that it is not your own work.
• Writing a paper that consists of numerous quotations strung
together does not qualify as one's own work. The fact that there
are quotation marks and citations is not a substitute for the
requirement that a piece of work is to be a product of the
writer's own mind.”
 When do you not need to give credit
(Purdue OWL)
• “Writing your own lived experiences, your own
observations and insights, your own thoughts, and your
own conclusions about a subject

• When you are writing up your own results obtained

through lab or field experiments

• When you use your own artwork, digital photographs,

video, audio, etc.”
 When do you not need to give credit
(Purdue OWL)
• “When you are using ‘common knowledge’ - things like folklore,
common sense observations, myths, urban legends, and
historical events (but not historical documents)”

• “When you are using generally accepted facts (e.g., pollution is

bad for the environment), including facts that are accepted
within particular discourse communities, e.g., in physics, ‘metals
are better conductors of heat and electricity than wood’ is a
generally accepted fact.”
 What is common knowledge? (Purdue OWL)

• “If you find the same information unreferenced in at least five

credible sources.
• If you think the information you're presenting is something your
readers will already know, or something that a person could
easily find in general reference sources.”

But when in doubt, cite - if the citation turns out to be

unnecessary, your teacher/ editor will tell you.
 When do you need to give credit?
(Purdue OWL)
• “Words or ideas presented in a magazine, book,
newspaper, song, TV program, movie, Web page, computer
program, letter, advertisement, or any other medium
• Information you gain through interviewing or conversing
with another person, face to face, over the phone, or in
writing
• When you copy the exact words or a unique phrase”
 When do you need to give credit?
(Purdue OWL)

• “When you reprint any diagrams, illustrations, charts,

pictures, or other visual materials
• When you reuse or repost any electronically-available
media, including images, audio, video, or other media”

Bottom line: Reference any words, ideas, or other

productions that originate outside of you.
Deciding whether to quote, paraphrase or summarize
(Axelrod & Cooper, 1997)

Quote only when:

• “The wording of the source is particularly memorable or vivid or expresses
a point so well that you cannot improve it without destroying the meaning.
• The words of reliable & respected authorities would lend support to your
position
• You wish to highlight the author’s opinions
• You wish to cite an author whose opinions challenge or vary greatly from
those of other experts.”

44
 Special concerns in quotations
(Axelrod & Cooper, 1997)

• Underlining or italicizing for emphasis

• Using ellipsis marks (…) for omissions
• Using brackets for insertions or changes
• Integrating quotations:
– In text
– Block quotations
45
 Checklist for citations
• In text citations
• List of references
– Books
– Periodicals
– Electronic sources
– Other sources
 In text citations
• Author named in a signal phrase
• Author named in parenthesis
• Two authors
• Three to five authors
• Six or more authors
• Organization as author
• Unknown author
 In text citations (Contd.)
• Two or more authors with the same last name
• Two or more sources within the same parentheses
• Specific parts of a source
• Email and other personal communication
• World Wide Web site
 List of references: Books
• One author
• Two or more authors
• Organization as an author
• Unknown author
• Editor
• Selection in a book with an editor
• Translation
• Edition other than the first
 List of references: Books (Contd.)
• One volume of a multivolume work
• Article in a reference work
• Republication
• Government document
• Two or more works by the same author(s)
 List of references: Periodicals
• Article in a journal paginated by volume
• Article in a journal paginated by issue
• Article in a magazine
• Article in a newspaper
• Editorial or letter to the editor
• Unsigned article
• Review
• Published interview
• Two or more works by the same author in the same year
 List of references: Electronic sources
• World Wide Web site
• FTP, telnet, or gopher site
• Listserv message
• Newsgroup message
• Email message
• Synchronous communication (MUDs, MOOs)
• Material from a CD-ROM database
• Material from an information service or online database
• Material from a database accessed via the Web
• Software or computer program
 List of references: Other sources
• Technical or research reports and working papers
• Paper presented at a meeting or symposium, unpublished
• Dissertation, unpublished
• Poster session
• Film or videotape
• Television program, single episode
• Audio recording
• Photograph
Thank you!

DR. ARADHNA MALIK 54

Research Writing

Dr. Aradhna Malik

Vinod Gupta School of Management
Writers Block
 Writers Traps (Kukla, 2007)
• Persistence: To continue to work on projects that
have lost their value

(Diff. from perseverance, i.e. the ability to

steadfastly pursue your aim despite the obstacles
along the way
 Amplification (Kukla, 2007)
• Working harder than necessary to achieve your aim

The end you are working towards remains valuable, but your
work does not advance you towards it

CAUTION: DETERMINE THE OPTIMAL QUANTITY OF DATA AND

QUALITY OF PRESENTATION WITH THE HELP OF YOUR
SUPERVISOR
• Accumulation (Vertical amp.) – more data
• Repetition (Horizontal amp.) – more perfection
 Fixation (Kukla, 2007)
• Progress towards result is blocked.

e.g. You do not start working on your next section

till your supervisor does not totally approve your
first section. So, while the supervisor is revising
your submission, you waste your time waiting for
the result.
 Reversion (Kukla, 2007)
• You tried, you failed. The game is over. You still go
back and try to fix something that can never be
fixed.
 Anticipation (Kukla, 2007)
• Starting too soon
• Overworking – more effort than necessary
• Preworking – antecedent conditions change goal
• Working in vain – benefits lost before goal is
attained
 Resistance (Kukla, 2007)
• Inability to change our course of action
 Procrastination (Kukla, 2007)
• Tendency to keep putting off till tomorrow what
you can do today
 Division (Kukla, 2007)
• Trying to attend to more than one task at a time
with the same amount of commitment and focus
 Acceleration (Kukla, 2007)
• Working at a pace faster than optimal
 WHY? ([Link])
• Excessive self criticism and perfectionism
• Writing what you should instead of what you enjoy
• Obsessing on one piece/ story too hard
• Expectations: Fantasy and reality
• Losing faith in the process
• Inability to find any information on the topic
• Stress and panic: A vicious cycle
You have attempted to begin a document without doing any
preliminary work such as brainstorming or outlining...
• Possible Cures
– Use invention strategies
([Link]

– Write down all the primary ideas you'd like to express and
then fill in each with the smaller ideas that make up each
primary idea. This can easily be converted into an outline.
You have chosen or been assigned a topic which
bores you....
• Possible Cures
– Choose a particular aspect of the topic you are interested in
(if the writing situation will allow it...i.e. if the goal of your
writing can be adjusted and is not given to you specifically, or
if the teacher or project coordinator will allow it)
– Talk to your supervisor about how you can personalize a
topic to make it more interesting
You don't want to spend time writing or don't understand
the assignment ...and are scared to admit it!
• Possible Cures
– Resign yourself to the fact that you have to write
– Find out what is expected of you (consult a teacher,
textbook, student, tutor, or project coordinator)
– Look at some of the strategies for writing anxiety
(mentioned on the following slides)
 You are anxious about writing the paper...
• Possible Cures
– Focus your energy by rehearsing the task in your head.
– Consciously stop the non-productive comments running
through your head by replacing them with productive
ones.
– If you have some "rituals" for writing success (chewing
gum, listening to music, exercise etc.), use them.
 You are so stressed out you can't seem to put a word
on the page...
• Possible Cures
– Stretch! If you can't stand up, stretch as many muscle groups as possible while
staying seated.
– Try tensing and releasing various muscle groups. Starting from your toes, tense
up for perhaps five to ten seconds and then let go. Relax and then go on to
another muscle group.
– Breathe deeply. Close your eyes; then, fill your chest cavity slowly by taking four
of five short deep breaths. Hold each breath until it hurts, and then let it out
slowly.
– Use a calming word or mental image to focus on while relaxing. If you choose a
word, be careful not to use an imperative. Don't command yourself to "Calm
down!" or "Relax!"
 You're self-conscious about your writing, you may have trouble getting
started. So, if you're preoccupied with the idea that you have to write
about a subject and feel you probably won't express yourself well...
• Possible Cures
– Talk over the subject with a friend or superior.
– Assure yourself that the first draft doesn't have to be a work of genius, it
is something to work with.
– Force yourself to write down something, however poorly worded, that
approximates your thought (you can revise this later) and go on with the
next idea.
– Break the task up into steps. Meet the general purpose first, and then
flesh out the more specific aspects later.
– Try one of the strategies on the next slide.
 Strategies for dealing with writers block
• Begin in the middle
• Talk out the paper
• Audio-record your ideas about the paper
• Change the audience (temporarily)
• Play a role of a reader
Thank you!

DR. ARADHNA MALIK 74

Research Writing

Dr. Aradhna Malik

Vinod Gupta School of Management
Revising

76
 Purpose
• To ensure that you have covered what you intended
to cover through your work
• To re-visit your work after a break with a critical eye
that may lead to newer insights

77
 Kinds of revision
([Link]

• Large scale revision: Developing new insights and

re-writing a major chunk of the work or changing
the perspective or direction the work takes
• Small scale revision: Plugging gaps

78
 Revision forms the basis for
• Editing
• Proofreading

79
 In the first reading, ask yourself
([Link]

• “Did I complete the assignment?

• Was I able to convey what I wanted to convey?
• What are the strengths of my paper?
• What are the weaknesses of my paper?”

80
 Revision checklist
([Link]

• “Have I conveyed the significance of my ideas to my

readers? Is my purpose clear?
• Does my essay meet the requirements of my
assignment?
• Is my focus too broad? Have I narrowed my topic well?
• Is my organization plan effective?”

81
 Revision checklist (Contd.)
([Link]

• “Is there a way to make the concept I am discussing clearer

& more focused?
• Is the voice or style I am using appropriate to my audience?
• Have I clearly defined any terms used?
• Have I considered any possible objections to my position, if I
take a position in this research manuscript?
• Do I provide clear transitions between my ideas? Are there
any gaps between my points?”

82
 Revision checklist (Contd.)
([Link]

• “Are there any points that need further

explanation or detail?
• Are there any points that need to be cut because
they are not related to my focus?
• Are my sources credible? Have I addressed this
credibility in my writing?”

83
 Revision checklist (Contd.)
([Link]

• “Have I integrated my source material smoothly &

effectively by providing signal phrases and/ or context
for the information?
• Have I put source material in my own words as much
as possible & used quotes only when necessary?
• Have I properly acknowledged all of my source
material, including paraphrases & summaries?”

84
Strategies for detailed
revision

85
 Looking for patterns of opposition
(Axelrod & Cooper, 1997)
• “Annotate words & phrases that indicate oppositions or polarities
• Divide a piece of paper in half lengthwise by drawing a line down the middle, or set
up a two-column table on your computer. In the left hand column, list words &
phrases you marked in the text. Enter in the right hand column the world or phrase
that is the opposite of each word or phrase in the left-hand column. You may have
to paraphrase or even supply this opposite word or phrase if it is not stated directly
in the text.
• For each pair of words phrases, note with an asterisk which one the writer seems
to prefer.
• Study the words or phrases that seem to be valued. Do the same for the other list.
How do they contribute to your understanding – and acceptance – of the
argument? What do they tell you about what the writer wants you to believe?”

86
 Looking for patterns of opposition: Checklist
(Axelrod & Cooper, 1997)

• “Annotate the selection for oppositions.

• List the pairs on a separate page.
• For each pair of words, put an asterisk next to the
word that is preferred in the selection.
• Examine the pattern of preferred terms to discover the
system of values the pattern implies, and do the same
for the unpreferred terms.”
87
 Evaluating the logic of an argument
(Axelrod & Cooper, 1997)

• “Tests for evaluating the logic of an argument:

– The reasons and support must be appropriate to the
thesis
– All of the reasons & support must be believable
– The reasons & support must be consistent with one
another as well as complete”

88
 Testing for appropriateness (Axelrod & Cooper, 1997)

• “… how does each reason or piece of support relate

to the thesis? Is the connection between reasons &
support & the thesis clear & compelling? Or is the
argument irrelevant or only vaguely related to the
thesis?”

89
 Testing for believability
(Axelrod & Cooper, 1997)

• “Facts are statements that can be proved objectively to

be true.
– The believability of facts depends on their accuracy (They
should not distort or misrepresent reality)
– Their completeness (they should not omit important details)
– The trustworthiness of their sources (Sources should not be
qualified or biased)”

90
 Testing for believability (Contd.)
(Axelrod & Cooper, 1997)

• Statistics are interpretations of numerical data

The believability of statistics depends on
– The comparability of the data (apples cannot be compared to
oranges)
– The precision of the methods employed to gather and analyze
data (representative samples should be used and variables
accounted for)
– The trustworthiness of the sources (sources should be qualified
and unbiased)

91
 Testing for believability (Contd.)
(Axelrod & Cooper, 1997)

• “Examples & anecdotes are particular instances that if

accepted as believable lead readers to accept the general
reason or thesis.
The believability of examples & anecdotes depends upon
– Their representativeness (whether they are truly typical & thus
generalizable)
– Their specificity (whether particular details make them seem true
to life)

92
 Testing for believability (Contd.)
(Axelrod & Cooper, 1997)

• “Authorities are people to whom the writer

attributes expertise on a given subject.
The believability of authorities depends upon:
– Their credibility – On whether the reader accepts them
as experts on the topic at hand”

93
 Testing for consistency & completeness
(Axelrod & Cooper, 1997)

• “In looking for consistency, you should be

concerned that all the parts of the argument work
together & that none of the reasons or support
contradict any of the other reasons or support. In
addition the reasons & support, taken together,
should be sufficient to convince readers to accept
the thesis or at least take it seriously”

94
 Checking for consistency & completeness
(Axelrod & Cooper, 1997)

• “… are any of the reasons & support contradictory?

• Do they provide sufficient grounds for accepting the
thesis?
• Has the writer failed to counterargue by
acknowledging or refuting any opposing arguments
or important objections?”
95
 Checklist for global revisions (Hacker, 2000)
• Focus
• Organization
• Content
• Style
• Use of quotations
• Use of other source material

96
 Focus (Hacker, 2000)

• “Is the thesis stated clearly enough?

• Is it placed where readers will notice it?
• Does each idea support the thesis?”

97
 Organization (Hacker, 2000)

• “Can readers easily follow the structure? Would

headings help?
• Do topic sentences signal new ideas?
• Are ideas presented in a logical order?”

98
 Content (Hacker, 2000)

• Is the supporting material persuasive?

• Are important ideas fully developed?
• Is the draft concise enough – free of irrelevant or
repetitious material?
• Are the parts proportioned sensibly? Do major
ideas receive enough attention?”

99
 Style (Hacker, 2000)

• “Is the voice appropriate – not too stuffy, not too

breezy?
• Are the sentences clear, emphatic, & varied?”

100
 Use of quotations (Hacker, 2000)

• “Is quoted material introduced with a signal phrase

& documented with a citation?
• Is quoted material enclosed within quotation marks
(unless it has been set off from the text)?
• Is each quotation word-for-word accurate? If not,
do brackets or ellipsis dots mark the changes or
omissions?”
101
 Use of other source material (Hacker, 2000)
• “Is the draft free of plagiarism? Are summaries &
paraphrases written in the writer’s own words –not
copied or half-copied from the source?
• Has source material that is not common knowledge
been documented?”

102
Thank you!

DR. ARADHNA MALIK103

Research Writing

Dr. Aradhna Malik

Vinod Gupta School of Management
Mistakes
&
Fallacies
105
 Fallacies in reasoning that undermine the
believability of an argument (Axelrod & Cooper, 1997)
• “Begging the question, when the believability of the reasons & support depends on
the believability of the thesis. – Circular reasoning
• Failing to accept the burden of proof, when the writer asserts a thesis but provides
no reasons or support for it
• Hasty generalization, when the writer asserts a thesis on the basis of a single
reason or an isolated example
• Sweeping generalization, when the writer fails to qualify the applicability of the
thesis, & asserts that it applies to all instances instead of to some instances
• Overgeneralization, when the writer fails to qualify the thesis & asserts that it is
certainly true rather than that it may be true.”

106
 Fallacies in evaluating the consistency &
completeness of an argument (Axelrod & Cooper, 1997)
• “Slippery slope, when the writer argues that taking one step will lead inevitably to
a next step, one that is undesirable.
• Equivocation, when a writer uses the same term in two different senses in an
argument.
• Oversimplification, when an argument obscures or denies the complexity of the
issue.
• Either or reasoning, when the writer reduces the issue to only two alternatives that
are polar opposites.
• Double standard, when two or more comparable things are judged according to
different standards. This often involves holding the opposing argument to a higher
standard that the one to which the writer holds his or her own argument.”

107
 Categories of fallacies
(Lunsford, 2001)
• Ethical fallacies
• Logical fallacies
• Emotional fallacies

108
 Recognizing ethical fallacies
(Lunsford, 2001)
• Ad hominem: Relates to the Horns Effect – one
negative attribute about a situation indicates that
everything must be wrong with it.
• Guilt by association: Horns effect – in-group & out-
group attributes – e.g. A college lost its
accreditation, so all teachers in that college are not
credible

109
 Recognizing logical fallacies (Lunsford, 2001)
• Begging the question: “A kind of circular argument that treats
a question as if it has already been answered.” Research
writing courses are taught in institutes of higher education
where students produce good quality publications.
• Post hoc fallacy: “Assumes that just because B happened after
A, B must be responsible for A” e.g. Students enrolled in
research writing courses published in top rated journals.

110
Recognizing logical fallacies (Contd.) (Lunsford, 2001)

• Non sequitur: “Attempts to tie together two or more

logically unrelated ideas as if they were related.”
• Either-or fallacy: “Asserts that a complex situation can
have only two possible outcomes, one of which is
necessarily preferable.”
• Hasty generalization: “Bases a conclusion on too little
evidence or on bad or misunderstood evidence.”
• Oversimplification

111
 Recognizing emotional fallacies (Lunsford, 2001)

• Bandwagon appeal: “Suggests that a great movement is under way

& the reader will be a fool or a traitor not to join it.”
– “Why should you join it? Where is the evidence to support this claim?”
• Flattery (of readers): You are so bright, you must be knowing this
…, etc.
– “How will it pay off?”
• In-crowd appeal: “Invites readers to identify with an admired &
select group.”
– “Who are these people? And will you become one of them by joining
them?

112
 Recognizing emotional fallacies (Contd.)
(Lunsford, 2001)

• Veiled threats: “Try to frighten readers into agreement by

hinting that they will suffer adverse consequences if they
don’t agree.”
– “How serious is this possible effect? Is it likely – or even legal?
• False analogies: “Make comparisons between two situations
that are not alike in most or important respects.”
– Logical connection to original argument & timeliness

113
 Common categories of mistakes
(Hacker, 2002)

• Abstraction: Use of complicated rather than concrete

language. e.g. “She plunged into a sea of platitudes,
and with the powerful breaststroke of a channel
swimmer, made her confident way towards the white
cliffs of the obvious.” OR
“The deterioration of the corpus at the margin of the
vehicular thoroughway made a substantive finding as to
its original genus difficult to determine.”
 Common categories of mistakes (Contd.)
(Hacker, 2002)

• Bypassing: “Happens when different meanings are

associated with the same word symbol or when
different symbols are used to identify the same idea or
object.” e.g. when a British citizen tells you to ‘get a
torch out of the boot’
OR your colleague tells you that her ‘mouse is dead’
Common categories of mistakes (Contd.) (Hacker, 2002)
• Fact inference: Jumping to conclusions – prevent us from
being thorough with our work.
• Misused words: Can lead to misinterpretations. e.g.
Juxtaposition and Superimposition
• Overgeneralization: Stereotyping – Sweeping statements
prevent us from providing enough information in our
messages. e.g. All Indians can stand on their heads.
Common categories of mistakes (Contd.) (Hacker, 2002)
• Extremism: “To see the world simplistically, in black and
white, rather than in shades of gray.” e.g. Research
essentially deals with proving or disproving a
hypothesis.
• Inflexibility: “Rigidity in our awareness of the world
around us.” e.g. Growing up, I was informed that the
best research is conducted in America, so even now I
choose to believe that the best research is conducted in
America.
Thank you!

DR. ARADHNA MALIK118

Research Writing

Dr. Aradhna Malik

Vinod Gupta School of Management
 Editing &
Proofreading
120
 Editing checklist
([Link]

• “Have I checked to make sure the spell checker did not

change any words to words I did not intend to write?
• Have I looked closely at my sentences to see if any
words are missing?
• Did I review the rules for grammar and punctuation?
• Did I include citations for all of my borrowed
information?”
121
 What is proofreading?
([Link]

“The act of searching for errors before you hand in

your final research document.”

122
 Before you proofread
([Link]

• “Be sure you’ve revised the larger aspects of the text

• Set your paper aside between writing & proofreading
• Eliminate unnecessary words before looking for
mistakes
• Know what to look for
• Review your list of references”

123
 Strategies to help identify errors
([Link]
• “Work from a printout, not a computer screen
• Read out loud
• Use a ruler or blank sheet of paper to cover up the lines below the one
you’re reading
• If you tend to make many mistakes, check separately for each kind of error
• End with using a computer spell checker or reading backwards word by
word
• Leave yourself enough time – sleep over the manuscript before final
submission
• As a friend to read your paper”

124
 Individualize the act of proofreading
([Link]

• “Think about what errors you typically make

• Learn how to fix those errors
• Use specific strategies
• Where you proofread is important!
• Proofread in several short blocks of time”

125
 Suggestions for the use of tense
([Link]
• “Abstract: Past tense [a summary description of what I did]
• Introduction: Present tense [I am describing the study to you now]
• Literature review: Past tense [The studies you are reviewing have already
been written]
• Methodology: Past tense [The way that you gathered & synthesized data
has already happened, otherwise how could you write your paper?]
• Results: Past tense [The findings have already been discovered]
• Discussion: Present tense [I am talking to you now about how I interpreted
the findings]
• Conclusion: Present tense [I am summarizing the study for you now]

126
Thank you!

DR. ARADHNA MALIK127

Research Writing

Dr. Aradhna Malik

Vinod Gupta School of Management
Choosing a journal to publish in

129
 Factors to consider
([Link]

• “Scope
• Impact and reputation
• Journal policies
• Accessibility of journal articles”

130
Identifying impact & reputation of journals
• Impact Factor: The numerical value assigned to a
journal based on its usage. (No. of times articles
from that journal have been used in other peer
reviewed literature)
– H-index (Hirsch Index): Measures the productivity and
citation impact of individual publications or scholars.

131
 Journal metrics
([Link]
[Link]
• InCites Journal Citation Reports ([Link]
[Link]/incitesLive/JCRGroup/[Link])
• SCOPUS Journal Metrics: [Link]
• Google Scholar Metrics
([Link]
• Web of science
([Link]
t=WOS&search_mode=GeneralSearch&SID=C1XyaVqbnvgQ2MiSBSF&prefe
rencesSaved=)
• Publish or Perish ([Link]

132
 Author Metrics
• H Index
• ORCID (Open Researcher & Contributor iD): Many
reputed journals ask you for this when submitting
your manuscript
– Feeds into the H Index
– Ensures that your work is attributed to you

133
 Predatory Journals
• Journals that prey on the work of sincere scholars for their own
benefit.

References:
• [Link]
journal/[Link]
• [Link]
journals
• [Link]
017

134
 Identifying predatory journals
([Link]
• “Look at the journal’s scope to determine if it is overly broad & vague, or
includes completely unrelated fields of research.
• Check the journal archives for highly irregular publication cycles, e.g., 1
issue in one year, 6 in another etc. Be particularly wary if archives are
inaccessible due to repeated website crashes & redirect loops.
• Check if the publisher has a large fleet of journals that contain very little
content.
• Verify that the journal’s peer review & manuscript handling process is
clearly described. If the promised turnaround time for peer-review is very
short & features prominently this is a sign of a predatory publisher.
• Evaluate the professionalism of the website.”

135
 Identifying predatory journals (Contd.)
([Link]
• “If it claims to be indexed by a reputable database, verify this by
checking the database.
• Look out for fake indexes like the Index Copernicus, or fake impact
factors like the Universal Impact Factor or Global Impact Factor.
• Verify that the journal displays its author fee policy.
• Check that the publisher provides full, verifiable contact
information on the journal site. Be cautious of publishers that
provide contact email addresses that are non-professional or not
affiliated with the journal.”

136
 Identifying predatory journals (Contd.)
([Link]
• “Reputable publishers can become members of an
industry association that whets its members like the
Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association & the
Committee on Publication Ethics. Verify their
membership if they claim to be associated.
• Use common sense: If something appears suspicious,
proceed with caution. Consult with colleagues, or
superiors, or contact your librarian.”

137
 Lists of predatory publishers
([Link]

• “ [Link]
• [Link]
journals/
• [Link]

138
Thank you!

DR. ARADHNA MALIK139

Research Writing

Dr. Aradhna Malik

Vinod Gupta School of Management
Responding to Reviewer Comments

141
 Types of reviews (Williams, 2004)
• Accept with minor or no revisions: Rare/ Impossible
• Accept with major revisions
• “Journal requests a complete rewrite”
• “Unsure if reject or possible resubmission”: “We cannot
accept your paper in its current form, but if you do
decide to resubmit, then we would only consider a
substantial revision.”
• Outright rejection
142
 Responding to outright rejection
(Williams, 2004)

• Appeal to the editor for a change of referees

• Submit elsewhere

143
 Dealing with need to rewrite (Williams, 2004)

• Using the comments made by the reviewers,

rewrite your paper and resubmit
• Submit to another journal

144
 Responding to major revisions (Williams, 2004)

• Revise using reviewers’ comments, seek

clarifications if required, and resubmit.

145
 Responding to minor revisions (Williams, 2004)

• Revise based on the reviewers’ comments and

resubmit as soon as possible without asking any
questions unless absolutely required.
• DO NOT question or disagree with the reviewer at
this stage.

146
 Submitting your responses
(Williams, 2004; Cummings & Rivara, 2002)
• Read the suggestions & comments very very carefully
• Acknowledge the work done by the reviewer and thank her/ him for it.
• Tabulate with comments in one column and responses in the other, in
addition to incorporating suggestions wherever possible
• Answer completely, politely and with evidence
• Disagree if you must, but politely and with evidence.
• In case of conflicting comments from multiple reviewers, respond to the
one that makes sense to you, and defend using logic and evidence why you
were unable to respond to the others.

147
 Tips for responding to reviewer & editor comments
(Annesley, 2011)
• “Get mad. Then get over it.
• Consider what the editor’s decision letter really says.
• Wait & gather your thoughts.
• Even if the reviewer is wrong, it does not mean you are right.
• Choose your battles wisely.
• Do not pitch one reviewer against another.
• Be grateful for the reviewer’s & editor’s time
• Restate the reviewer’s or editor’s comment when responding.
• Be prepared to cut text.
• Do not submit the same version to another journal.”

148
Thank you!

DR. ARADHNA MALIK149