alenazaharovaux/share/academic-writing

## Crafting a research question
 
### The FINER criteria
-**F**easible: Can you actually do this research?
-**I**nteresting: Does it matter to the field?
-**N**ovel: Does it add new knowledge?
-**E**thical: Can it be done ethically?
-**R**elevant: Does it address a real problem?
 
### Question types
| Type | Purpose | Example |
|------|---------|---------|
| Descriptive | Document phenomena | "What are the characteristics of X?" |
| Comparative | Compare groups/conditions | "How does X differ between groups?" |
| Correlational | Examine relationships | "Is there a relationship between X and Y?" |
| Causal | Establish causation | "Does X cause Y?" |
| Exploratory | Generate hypotheses | "What factors might explain X?" |
 
### Refining your question
Start broad → Narrow progressively
 
Draft 1: "How does social media affect politics?"
Draft 2: "How does Twitter use affect political polarization?"
Draft 3: "How does exposure to partisan Twitter accounts affect
         political attitude polarization among US adults?"
Draft 4: "Does increased exposure to ideologically homogeneous Twitter
         feeds increase affective polarization among politically
         engaged US adults aged 18-35?"

## Systematic literature search
 
### Database selection by field
-**Multidisciplinary**: Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar
-**Social Sciences**: JSTOR, ProQuest, SSRN
-**Communication**: Communication Abstracts, ComAbstracts
-**Health**: PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL
-**Education**: ERIC
-**Business**: Business Source Complete
 
### Search strategy template
1.**Identify key concepts** from research question
2.**Generate synonyms** for each concept
3.**Combine with Boolean operators**
 
Example for: "social media political polarization"
 
Concept 1: social media
-OR: Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, "social networking sites",
      "online platforms", "digital media"
 
Concept 2: political
-OR: partisan, ideological, electoral, civic
 
Concept 3: polarization
-OR: division, extremism, "attitude change", radicalization
 
Combined search:
(Twitter OR Facebook OR "social media" OR "social networking")
AND (political OR partisan OR ideological)
AND (polarization OR division OR extremism)
 
### Inclusion/exclusion criteria
Document your criteria:
-Publication date range: [X to present]
-Languages: [English only / multiple]
-Publication types: [Peer-reviewed only / include preprints]
-Geographic scope: [Global / specific countries]
-Methodologies: [All / specific approaches]
 
### Managing your search
-Save searches to re-run later
-Export results to reference manager
-Track number of results at each stage
-Document date of each search

# Zotero/reference manager integration patterns
# For automated citation workflows
CITATION_STYLES = {
    'apa7': 'American Psychological Association 7th edition',
    'mla9': 'Modern Language Association 9th edition',
    'chicago': 'Chicago Manual of Style 17th edition',
    'harvard': 'Harvard Reference format',
    'ieee': 'IEEE',
    'vancouver': 'Vancouver (medicine)',
}
# BibTeX entry template
BIBTEX_ARTICLE = """
@article{{{citekey},
    author = {{{author}}},
    title = {{{title}}},
    journal = {{{journal}}},
    year = {{{year}}},
    volume = {{{volume}}},
    number = {{{number}}},
    pages = {{{pages}}},
    doi = {{{doi}}}
}}
"""
# Common citation patterns by context
CITATION_CONTEXTS = {
    'introducing_concept': "According to Author (Year), ...",
    'supporting_claim': "Research has shown that X (Author, Year; Author, Year).",
    'contrasting': "While Author (Year) argues X, Author (Year) contends Y.",
    'methodology_reference': "Following the method developed by Author (Year), ...",
    'direct_quote': 'Author (Year) states that "exact quote" (p. X).',
}

## Standard research paper sections
 
### Abstract (150-300 words typically)
-Background (1-2 sentences)
-Purpose/objective (1 sentence)
-Methods (2-3 sentences)
-Results (2-3 sentences)
-Conclusions (1-2 sentences)
 
### Introduction
**Funnel structure:**
1.Broad context - Why does this topic matter?
2.Narrow focus - What's the specific problem?
3.Gap identification - What don't we know?
4.Research question/hypothesis - What will you investigate?
5.Contribution preview - Why does this study matter?
 
### Literature Review
**Organize thematically, not chronologically:**
1.Theme 1: Key findings, debates, gaps
2.Theme 2: Key findings, debates, gaps
3.Theme 3: Key findings, debates, gaps
4.Synthesis: How themes connect to your study
 
### Methods
**The reproducibility test:** Could another researcher replicate your study from this section alone?
 
Include:
-Participants/sample (who, how selected, N)
-Materials/measures (what instruments, their validity)
-Procedure (step-by-step what happened)
-Analysis approach (statistical tests, qualitative methods)
-Ethical considerations (IRB, consent)
 
### Results
**Report, don't interpret:**
-Present findings systematically
-Use tables/figures for complex data
-Report effect sizes, not just p-values
-Address each research question/hypothesis
 
### Discussion
**Reverse funnel structure:**
1.Summary of key findings
2.Interpretation in context of literature
3.Theoretical implications
4.Practical implications
5.Limitations
6.Future research directions
7.Conclusion

## Writing conventions
 
### Voice and tense
| Section | Tense | Example |
|---------|-------|---------|
| Abstract | Past (methods/results), Present (conclusions) | "We found... This suggests..." |
| Introduction | Present (established knowledge) | "Research shows..." |
| Methods | Past | "Participants completed..." |
| Results | Past | "Analysis revealed..." |
| Discussion | Present + Past | "These findings indicate... We found..." |
 
### Hedging language
Appropriate hedging (avoiding overclaiming):
-"This suggests that..." (not "This proves that...")
-"may be related to" (not "causes")
-"Results indicate..." (not "Results demonstrate conclusively...")
-"One possible explanation..." (not "The explanation...")
 
### Transition words by function
**Addition:** furthermore, moreover, additionally, in addition
**Contrast:** however, nevertheless, conversely, in contrast
**Cause/effect:** therefore, consequently, as a result, thus
**Example:** for instance, specifically, to illustrate
**Sequence:** first, subsequently, finally, meanwhile
**Summary:** in summary, overall, in conclusion
 
### Paragraphs
Each paragraph should:
1.Begin with a topic sentence
2.Contain one main idea
3.Include supporting evidence
4.Connect to adjacent paragraphs
5.Average 100-200 words (varies by field)

## Issues to avoid
 
### Wordiness
❌ "It is important to note that the results demonstrate..."
✅ "Results demonstrate..."
 
❌ "In order to investigate..."
✅ "To investigate..."
 
❌ "A total of 50 participants..."
✅ "Fifty participants..."
 
### Weak verbs
❌ "The study was conducted by the researchers"
✅ "The researchers conducted the study"
 
❌ "There was a significant difference found"
✅ "We found a significant difference"
 
### Vague language
❌ "Several studies have shown..."
✅ "Three studies (Author, Year; Author, Year; Author, Year) showed..."
 
❌ "The results were significant"
✅ "The results were statistically significant (p < .05, d = 0.45)"
 
### Unnecessary jargon
-Define technical terms on first use
-Use simpler words when equally precise
-Consider your audience's expertise level
 
### Citation problems
❌ Citing secondary sources without noting
✅ "(Author, Year, as cited in Author, Year)"
 
❌ String citations without synthesis
✅ Group citations that make the same point; distinguish those that differ

## Response letter template
 
Dear Editor and Reviewers,
 
Thank you for the thoughtful feedback on our manuscript titled "[Title]"
(Manuscript ID: [Number]). We have carefully considered all comments and
revised the manuscript accordingly. Below, we provide point-by-point
responses to each comment.
 
---
 
## Reviewer 1
 
### Comment 1.1
[Quote or paraphrase the reviewer's comment]
 
**Response:**
[Your response explaining what you did]
 
**Changes made:**
[Quote the specific changes with page/line numbers]
"New text here..." (p. X, lines XX-XX)
 
### Comment 1.2
[Continue for each comment]
 
---
 
## Reviewer 2
[Same format]
 
---
 
We believe these revisions have substantially strengthened the manuscript
and hope you will find it suitable for publication in [Journal Name].
 
Sincerely,
[Authors]

## Types of reviewer feedback
 
### Must address
-Methodological concerns
-Missing literature
-Unclear writing
-Logical gaps in argument
-Statistical errors
 
### Negotiate carefully
-Requests for additional analyses
-Suggestions to restructure
-Disagreements on interpretation
 
### Pushback appropriately
-Requests outside scope
-Misunderstandings of your argument
-Contradictory advice from reviewers
 
### Response strategies
**Agreement:** "We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We have [action]."
**Partial agreement:** "We appreciate this point. While [acknowledge validity], we [explain your approach]. However, we have [partial accommodation]."
**Respectful disagreement:** "We thank the reviewer for raising this issue. We have considered this carefully; however, [explanation]. We hope the reviewer will find this reasoning persuasive."

## Standard grant components
 
### Specific aims (1 page)
**Opening paragraph:** What's the problem? Why does it matter?
**Gap statement:** What's missing from current understanding?
**Long-term goal:** Your research program vision
**Objective:** What this specific project will accomplish
**Central hypothesis:** Your testable prediction
**Aims:** 2-4 specific, achievable objectives
**Impact statement:** Why funding this matters
 
### Significance (2-3 pages)
-Importance of the problem
-Gaps in current knowledge
-How your work advances the field
-Potential impact if successful
 
### Innovation (1 page)
-What's new about your approach?
-Conceptual innovation
-Methodological innovation
-Technical innovation
 
### Approach (6-12 pages)
For each aim:
-Rationale
-Preliminary data (if any)
-Research design
-Methods
-Expected outcomes
-Potential problems and alternatives
-Timeline
 
### Broader impacts
-Training opportunities
-Dissemination plans
-Benefits to society
-Diversity and inclusion

## Budget categories
 
### Personnel
-PI salary and effort (% time)
-Co-investigators
-Postdocs (salary + benefits)
-Graduate students (stipend + tuition + benefits)
-Undergraduate researchers
-Technical staff
 
### Equipment
-Items over $5,000 (check sponsor threshold)
-Justify necessity for project
 
### Supplies
-Lab consumables
-Software licenses
-Participant payments
 
### Travel
-Conference presentations
-Data collection sites
-Collaborator visits
 
### Other direct costs
-Publication costs
-Participant incentives
-Transcription services
-Equipment maintenance
 
### Indirect costs (F&A)
-Negotiated rate with institution
-Typically 50-60% of direct costs

## Evaluating journals
 
### Quality indicators
-Impact factor (use cautiously)
-Acceptance rate
-Review time
-Time to publication
-Reputation in your field
-Indexing (Web of Science, Scopus)