Home Journals & Books Case Studies Marked lists Resource areas: Emerald Resources:

Home > Journal of Workplace Learning > Volume 21 issue 1 > The dos and don'ts of writing...
Search in this title:

Options
Abstract
View PDF (73kb)
Print View
References
References (6)
Citations
Scopus (2)
Further reading
Related Content
Search our articles for
similar content
Marked list
Add to marked list:
Bookmark & share
Reprints & permissions

Login Register Text View Mobile View Help Admin
Brought to you by: INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY BOMBAY
Logout | Account info
in: Search Advanced Search

Journal of Workplace Learning
ISSN: 1366-5626
Previously published as: Employee Counselling Today
Online from: 1997
Subject Area: Learning and Development
Content: Latest Issue | Latest Issue RSS | Previous Issues

The dos and don'ts of writing a journal article
Downloads: The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1758 times since 2009
DOI (Permanent URL): 10.1108/13665620910924925
Article citation: Tauno Kekle, Petra de Weerd-Nederhof, Sara Cervai, Massimo Borelli, (2009) "The dos and don'ts of writing a journal article", Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 21 Iss: 1, pp.71 -
80
The Authors
Tauno Kekle, University of Vaasa, Vaasa, Finland
Petra de Weerd-Nederhof, School of Management and Governance, University of Twente, Twente, The Netherlands
Sara Cervai, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy
Massimo Borelli, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy
Abstract
Purpose During work as reviewers and editors of journals authors are often faced the same types of problems in many articles.
The purpose of this piece is to give some guidelines on typical problems that lead to rejection, and how to avoid these.
Design/methodology/approach The paper discusses journal article design and offers some methodology viewpoints; in particular
about the differences between a PhD thesis aim and a scientific journal article. It focuses on some typical mistakes found in reviewing
papers.
Findings The paper finds that the main criteria to getting published are that the article must include original, empirical research.
Originality/value Following these guidelines the review process of articles will be smoother and the amount of rejects should
diminish. Especially young researchers can find good suggestions about how to write a paper for the Journal of Workplace Learning.
Article Type: Viewpoint
Keyword(s): Serials; Copywriting; Quality improvement.
Journal: Journal of Workplace Learning
Volume: 21
Number: 1
Year: 2009
pp: 71-80
Copyright Emerald Group Publishing Limited
ISSN: 1366-5626
Emphasis, scope and structure
Quite a lot of journal article submitters do not seem to recognise that there are and should be differences between papers that attract huge applause at the
conferences, the best papers of the year selected by scientific journals and award-winning PhD theses. The most obvious difference is the length of the text (the Journal of
Workplace Learning (JWL) length recommendation is up to 8,000 words), but it also seems many of the authors have not yet thought about the differences in structure,
scope and emphasis. Typically, a conference paper is not just an abbreviated journal paper, which, in turn is not just an abbreviated thesis. The reason is that all these
three publication channels exist for their own reasons and the inner logic of anything to be published should follow that logic of the channel. In this article we try to guide
prospective journal article authors to compose their papers correctly and to avoid the typical pitfalls of article writing.
Journals are where the results of new research are published for rigorous examination by the academic community. While each PhD thesis is printed between something
Emerald Insight | The dos and don'ts of writing a journal article http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=1770655
1 of 5 06-Aug-14 12:52 PM
like three (UK) and 150 (Finland) times, journals have circulations of thousands. Journals are also categorised and typically available over the internet with annual
download figures suggesting a readership of hundreds of thousands of scholars (JWL experiences 125,000 full article downloads a year, and there are many more
abstract-level lurkers). The prospective author should only consider writing a journal articles if he/she has something new to tell; where the truth value of something is to
be put to the test.
These different goals mean that published texts have to, in most cases, differ too at least in the fields that we work in. Not surprisingly, the purpose also dictates how to
write. We would like to discuss here the emphasis of a journal paper as it differs from a thesis or a conference paper. As many of our authors extract their articles from
thesis work, we here compare the purposes and compositions of a thesis and a journal article through the contents of typical chapter headings (these do not absolutely
have to appear in all articles, but they are, rather, general place markers for the kind of content there should be in an article). We do not discuss conference papers in
detail, but suggest that these usually need to be expanded and developed especially in their theoretical background and methodology to become publishable in a journal.
The Introduction chapters
The first real section typically seen in academic texts is some kind of introductory chapter or paragraph (we have here skipped the abstracts and keywords). Very often,
this is also called just the introduction. In a thesis the introductory part has a hugely expanded meaning and it is the single most important part in most approaches. It can
be several chapters in length in total. In a thesis, the student must show his/her ability to make out and follow a logical path of reasoning and it does make less sense
to show it at the end. Thus, the introduction of a thesis tells the readers what the student sets out to do and why, and also how he/she will be doing it.
In a journal article, often longer than a conference paper, this chapter could but doesn't necessarily have to explain the raison d'tre of the paper, why it is interesting
and why the author has felt it is worth his/her while to write and why the readers should read it. Too often the authors just state in the introduction that their topic has just
recently gained interest, which does not lead anywhere. Everything has a background. In journal articles, introductions are best kept to a minimum so all sentences that
have to do with the scientific background could be included in a separate chapter explaining earlier research in the field. The best use of the introductory chapter is to
briefly maybe on one page, at most state the purpose and goal of the paper, maybe even to explain the logic how the other chapters connect to each other in order to
build a logical continuum (assuming they do).
The problem definition, that we call here the research question, informs the readers which problem this thesis attempts to solve. For a PhD thesis, one problem correctly
solved is enough. Likewise, for a journal article, one hypothesis well argued and researched is enough. Because a thesis student or article author must also show that the
author knows what has been written of the topic earlier (the background or framework; the earlier research; the research gap) more areas of earlier research must be
reviewed. Likewise, while there is at least one logically correct and accepted way (method) to solve all types of problems, the more problems an author sets out to solve,
the more methods he/she must probably use in a correct way, and explain all these in just 8,000 words. Defining multiple research questions for one's thesis or article is
thus making life difficult for oneself. Defining one question, however, basically legitimates most of the restrictions and omissions done later in the article and makes it
possible to publish again with the rest of the material.
After the issue of research definition some further parameters may still be needed. For example, to guide one's sampling the author can state that the problem will only be
studied from a large company's viewpoint (for whatever reason, that is also best stated explicitly). Then the introductory part often tells in brief terms how the author will
prove that he/she is able to plan research required for solving this kind of a problem. The explanation of the logic often includes a listing of the phases of the work and
their interconnections. Normally, the phases are: to find out what is known of the problem; to set out a plan and a method on how to find a solution; to tell the solution or
result, showing evidence why this solution was good (enough); and drawing the wider universal conclusions of the findings.
The Earlier theory chapters
The following part after the introduction is often called theory or previous research or the literature study. The purposes of this part of the text in a thesis, which is the
broadest of the type of papers discussed here, are threefold:
the student must show that his/her results are new, and thus report what already exists of the topic; 1.
the student must build a base for his/her research that it can be connected to (key concepts, the nature of the phenomenon); and 2.
the student must build a theory of his/her own to aid in finding the solution to the problem. 3.
Only in a thesis it is really necessary to show that the student knows everything (or at least a reasonable amount) that is written about the topic. For a journal article, only
the references that really are crucial to the research reported in the paper need to be involved, and one definition for each of the key concepts is usually enough. So the
references could number 20 to 40 on a journal paper also including references to methods used and results of earlier research. For a thesis, the student can show the
quality of her reasoning by listing different definitions and paradigms and then explaining his/her choices among them. In articles, this normally consumes up the limited
space and can cause the reader to become lost. In both cases, but especially in journal articles when they derive from past researches (e.g. from PhD thesis), authors
should remember to update the references and to verify whether anything new has been published which refers to the topics of the research.
Based on a review of previous knowledge the author should be able to argue, on his/her explicit research question, how the result can be found out (remember that in
JWL we mainly accept papers that include an empirical element) and what it should logically be. In more mathematical studies this is called hypothesis building; in
qualitative studies, the word hypothesis is best avoided for paradigm reasons. Even if, since Glaser and Strauss (1999), the word theory for most academic people
means something a posteriori, building ground for one's own theoreticising, showing a hint of what the results in the paper are expected to be would seem probable. This
is the most important of the tasks of the so-called theory chapter. Doing this makes it clear already from the beginning if there will be anything new in the study already
before one does the empiric work. Thus, the earlier research/theoretical framework discussion is best presented with a short conclusion about why the earlier research or
theoretical framework leads the author to consider the research question presented in the introduction.
The Methodology chapters
The methodology chapter is the right place for the author to explain how the results were acquired and what should be derived from them. The main point of a journal
article is to put the findings to the test of the academic community, so all relevant details of the method should be explained. This typically makes the methodology chapter
the main emphasis or at least very important in a journal article. So for a journal think of what was done, and what could be suspect in the use of the applied method
from a validity and reliability viewpoint, and report these details thoroughly. These methodology parts can often take up to one-third or so of the length of a journal paper.
One can still, however, expect that the readers know the basics of the methods so there is no real need to present the background of the methodology. There are a couple
of major exceptions: first, if you are writing a paper developing the method as its main result, the basics of the method should appear in the literature review section; and,
second, if the applied method is very field-specific and narrowly used, a broader explanation might be included, preferably in an Appendix.
Again, for the thesis, most of this is different. The examiners will probably know their Yins and Glaser and Strausses, but the student does not write his/her PhD thesis to
educate them the student writes it to educate him/herself! Thus, in a thesis the student must write out explicitly what is known about the chosen method to be able to
show that he/she has chosen a suitable method for his/her research question. So, while a journal article puts out the details of the implementation of the method for
scrutiny, a thesis places more emphasis on selecting the correct method. A journal article should not explain methods other than the one used for collecting the evidence,
and even then the emphasis should be how it was done by the researcher, not the generics of the method itself.
Scholars can use different methods to answer the research question which is the aim of their study. Researchers should choose the method on the basis of the type of
question they are analysing and often more than one method is used before arriving to a scientific result. For example, through interviews the researcher can know in
depth some factors that can be surveyed by questionnaires to enlarge the sample, or be developed in an experimental study when the researcher is able to plan how to
control variables.
In further papers we are going to publish in JWL we will pay particular attention to the main methods that social science researchers use in their studies: quantitative
Emerald Insight | The dos and don'ts of writing a journal article http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=1770655
2 of 5 06-Aug-14 12:52 PM
(questionnaires, measures), qualitative (action research, case study, interview) and experimental ones. In this paper we just concentrate on some of the commonest
mistakes we have found in reviewing papers.
The Results and Discussion chapters
After the research work has been conducted and explained from a methodological viewpoint, the next stage is usually to report the results and findings. These are, maybe
surprisingly, of more relative importance in conferences and especially journal papers than in a thesis one writes maybe up to a third of the length of a paper about what
the results were and how they might affect the solar system and us all! In a thesis, the length of the results chapter varies widely, and it can be argued that the emphasis is
in the parts rather than the results chapter. In this we do not mean there should not be results presented in a thesis, just that journals exist solely to report findings and so
in a journal article the author must inevitably concentrate on them.
How many results should one then report? Again, in a thesis this is quite simple the student must report all the results, only the results and almost nothing but the results
that relate to his/her research question. These results must then be discussed rigorously to show the validity, reliability and eventual contribution (for this purpose the
student may need another literature review at the end of a thesis to explain and compare with similar studies elsewhere). In journal articles, at least usually in social
sciences, the approach is quite similar but because of restricted space it may make sense to divide the results into several separate articles. The emphasis must still be on
showing the reliability and validity of the research effort; a journal article is the main way of submitting one's research findings to the critical evaluation of the scientific
community.
Space restrictions are indicative of the purpose of the media, meaning keep the conference papers short and attractive, explain your method and results thoroughly in a
journal but keep to the point and use all the space you need to show the examiners in your thesis you know everything that is required to plan and conduct reliable, good
scientific work in the future.
Some typical problems in submitted articles part 1: articles with quantitative approaches
Invalidated changes in famous models
The cross-validated causal models that exist in the literature are unique in the cultures and purposes they have been built for. It is quite typical to take whatever famous
model as a starting point but then, based on the criticism the model has received, adapt the model to new cultures and purposes (and translating the instruments is one
such way of adapting). While doing this, one must keep in mind that changing concepts in the models makes the use of the questionnaires based earlier on them quite
bold and makes comparisons to earlier research difficult. To journal editors, this problem shows itself when an author presents an adapted model but refers to the
validation work done by the original authors before adaptation.
We have ourselves also sinned. In our Patterns of NPD study we utilised some of the famous existing constructs and question sets to measure culture (Hofstede and
Neuijen, 1990) and strategy types (Miles and Snow, 1978). However, while the original questionnaires showed good Cronbach alphas throughout, after our translation the
alphas were way down. It seems that while the IBM managers could well understand Hofstede's questions translated to different languages, the Portuguese tile factory
managers in our sample had difficulties in understanding the words that we used in Portuguese and relating to the very same concepts.
Questionnaires that do not allow conclusions about causalities
Rule number one in causal models is that cause must take place before the effect in time. In any empirical study thus environmental factors or educator or management
actions must take place before the increase/decrease in business results, learning or other effects. Of course, to make matters worse, everybody who has been active in
real work in the field knows that in human systems there is a natural time delay between actions and results. A research report that shows learning results the day before
a training interaction must be based on wrongly constructed research. Learning, especially, is often a very longterm process; the results may not manifest themselves for
years.
This problem is actually not rare at all. We encounter similar problems at nearly every conference we visit. The really bad news is that typically the problem is in instrument
development, and it is much too late to do anything about this after the field or survey part of the study has already been conducted other than to try to minimise the
damage in reporting. One example: one of us examined a DBA thesis some years ago. In this thesis, the student wanted to show that good conflict-free distribution
channels of a business network lead to good business results at all participating companies. The research design of this student was as follows: he first sent a
questionnaire to the network partners asking about the atmosphere and trust within the network. Then he checked the economic results of the partner companies, and
then he drew correlations between these two numerical indicators (business result in dollars and distribution network peace as Likert scale averages). What did not cross
the student's mind is that the annual business results that a company publishes e.g. in April 2008 are based on the business during the calendar year 2007. These are
always retrospective while the questionnaire probed the current atmosphere in the networks. If causality between these issues can be shown, it must be the other way
round i.e. that good business results cause distribution channel peace because the measured result took place before the measured distribution channel conditions in
time.
Also, correlation is not a causal dependence; two issues can have a strong correlation but the author should show that they indeed depend on each other and not on
some third issue. This is difficult even if the third issue is being measured, and quite impossible if not. So, to study the existing models related to the phenomenon being
considered, one has to be sure that all the relevant variables potentially affecting the result are somehow controlled. It is then necessary to compose the instrument so that
it really can show causality over the natural delay in the field system. If you are not sure there is causality, only refer to a correlation, or better also a more simple
association could be considered[1]. Typically journals will want to publish the instruments or questionnaires in appendices so that their validity for the conclusions can be
evaluated.
Expanding conclusions outside the data
In research articles, there is often a small paragraph called limitations of the study. This paragraph outlines how the author thinks the results and conclusions can be
applied to issues outside the selected sample. A common misunderstanding in analysing questionnaire data is that the final response rate would somehow affect the
generalisability and, thus, authors often write limitation statements like while the response rate was only 25 per cent the results can not be generalised. Actually, the
response rate tells not much except that the possibility that some groups systematically do not answer may increase and that there is a stronger risk to accept the false
hypothesis what statisticians call the beta error. This, however, can and should be controlled in a well-planned study. The easiest way to control it is to include enough
relevant background variables in the instrument and check whether the distribution of these background variables' values is similar in the final batch of responses as it is in
the original sample. If the sample was selected randomly and the distributions are similar, there is no problem in stating the same conclusions from the 25 per cent than
there would have been from the original sample. This must just be written out explicitly[2].
The generalisation possibilities are theoretical also in quantitative studies. If one has studied the learning of 200 medical doctors in Sweden, one should also have gained
enough understanding through the theoretical framework of the research to state whether the responses could be similar, measured with the same instrument, also e.g. in
other national cultures (say, Norway) and in other related personnel groups (say, nurses in Sweden). The statements of generalisability should be based on such insights
rather than the numerical descriptors of the sample. No matter what the descriptors of the sample finally are, they in themselves never (statistically) allow the conclusions
to be generalised anywhere else than the full population. If we study Swedish doctors and get responses from 200 of them, these answers may eventually represent the
whole population of Swedish doctors but nobody else. But before we make assumptions regarding the similarity of this population and some other population we must
have information that is independent of the reported statistical exercise. Papers accepted in an international journal do not need to contain results that can be generalised
worldwide; from the other side authors should consider how far their results can be useful to other scholars around the world.
Not explaining the findings in plain language
Emerald Insight | The dos and don'ts of writing a journal article http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=1770655
3 of 5 06-Aug-14 12:52 PM
Above all reporting must be understandable. It is apparently simple to extract tables from current statistics software packages and to add a couple of sentences repeating
the same information from the table headings. We habitually reject such articles because the opportunity for us to learn from them is too well hidden.
Because the article should start by stating the research question and the research should then lead to conclusions based on that question, the tables of data or
calculations that are published should be those that lead to these conclusions. In the main, descriptive tables of the sample are not such data. The data, or correlation,
however, are neither the conclusion nor the implication in themselves. This is at best information, while we would like to publish additions to existing knowledge. Thus,
every table that is published should be accompanied by a paragraph explaining in plain English the conclusion drawn from that table. If there is no conclusion to be drawn
from the table then omit the table. It is by no means sure that the readers who know much less of the research layout can draw the conclusion. And while tables do not
count as words, they add the amount of pages; the biggest cost of publishing are the printing costs, and long papers are not viewed favourably. A good rule of the thumb
might be to keep the 8,000 word manuscripts to fewer than 20 pages.
Typically, it is good practice to end the paper with a brief conclusion: what was the research question, how it is answered in the light of the evidence/data, and what are the
implications of this finding either to earlier theory (support/reject) and/or practitioners?
Some typical problems in submitted articles part 2: articles with qualitative approaches
The author not explaining how and why the cases were chosen
According to Yin (2008), case studies are a very good way of gaining comprehensive understanding of a situation that has not been previously studied or of which little is
known. Generally we like case studies; however, due to the relatively large amount of text compared to more quantitative articles, the red thread in a case study can be
difficult to find. And if the reviewers cannot find it they will reject the article.
In order to ensure a red thread throughout the article, it is a good idea to start planning any case study research by making a case study protocol such as recommended
by Yin. The subject headings of a protocol (maybe with the exception of a publication plan) would well double as the headings of a journal article too. We at JWL do not
require the protocol to be included as an Appendix, and anything but the most minimalistic protocol would also increase the amount of pages required. However let us say
that it tends to show in the quality of the final article if the author has made a good plan. This makes a difference especially in clarifying the kind of purposeful sampling
that was conducted, and how the conclusions reflect the case description.
Most case studies include purposeful sampling as a part of this red thread. For e.g., imagine that the author wants to explore how welders learn from their own mistakes.
In order to do this, one naturally first has to find some welders to interview or observe as the empirical material of the study. Then, depending on the research strategy,
some other groups may also be required for example, carpenters and plumbers, in order to observe their learning in a similar assembly task but in order to isolate what
the welders do from what is generally done. The similarities in learning among all three groups are (with some probability, at least) the general issues of learning from
one's own mistakes, and the issues that show in the welders group but not in the two others may then be the specific items (again, with some probability). The probability
in all research settings is less than 100 per cent all research gives us just a approximate picture of reality but it is not the final probability that we as editors are so
much concerned but the steps taken in the research strategy and sampling to make a decent probability possible. If a group of welders alone is studied there is not a very
good probability of establishing their specific learning issues. The important issue in getting a case study like this published is to make it explicit and explain the research
setting and the type of sampling that was chosen.
While it is difficult to improve a quantitative study instrument after the research has been done, it is possible to improve the quality of a case study report also by compiling
the case study protocol afterwards. In fact, we sometimes recommend that authors who have not made a written case study protocol do so after their field research is
complete and then organise their article manuscript around that logic. This makes it easier to check that everything is in place, and ensures that space is not used that
does not progress the research.
The author failing to report the data that makes the conclusions possible/the author writing much too much about uninteresting things
Quite often in case studies, text analysis, thematic interviews and other basically qualitative studies the author gets into problems with his/her description of the material
collected. The main part of evidence in a case study is the case description. In interviews, the evidence is in the responses; the main part in text analysis is the texts. The
problem is easier to grasp when starting from the restriction: the 8,000 words. The tables of quantitative papers are not counted in these, but the descriptions of the
qualitative studies must be. Furthermore, it is generally accepted that a good case study description must be thick (Geertz, 1973) because it is only by being able to
check all the relevant details that the reader can make any assumptions about the reliability or validity of the conclusions (Sykes, 1991). Thus, all the relevant details and a
thick description must be included in the 8,000 words, together with the theoretical background, all methodological concerns and other standard issues discussed
above.
Quite often these issues also stem from lack of red thread in the study. As in Minotauros cavern, the red thread can be easiest to find when starting from the end and
going backwards. What are the conclusions that the author is making? Does the case description include any evidence of these? If yes, then a minimum of other case
descriptions on top of the thick description of this evidence will do. The writing of a case description with a red thread thus could start by writing down the evidence for
the conclusions, and then expanding with other details from there, until the whole case is e.g. three pages. We ourselves sometimes write a complete case, then make a
wall poster with the conclusion(s), then use a markup pen to highlight the sentences in the description that include the evidence, and then reduce other sentences until
the description is down to the right length. Another method is to make a table of Conclusion 1, then below it sentences that illustrate or support this conclusion, the
Conclusion 2 and so on. This table can then be attached in the article or left out. The main issue is that the red thread addresses the important issues leading to the
conclusions and omits the less important issues. This is a bit like separating the diamonds from the stock; but as in the allegory, it is easier when one knows what a
diamond looks like.
Conclusion
The principles explained above are attempts to improve the incoming submissions to JWL but can also be seen as guidelines to make research reports more systematic
and effective and thus more likely to be accepted. However, the final judgment by the reviewers is based on factors other than the cohesiveness, logic and mastery of
methods. So, the Journal keeps on publishing well-written and well-researched articles in its own topical area. The main criteria to getting published in JWL in the future
will be that the article must include original, empirical research about learning in workplaces. Any other shortcomings can always be improved in the review process.
We will discuss the pitfalls of the statistical methodology typically used in social sciences research in a later article in more detail. Meanwhile, keep the submissions
flowing in!
References
Geertz, C. (1973), "Thick description: toward an interpretive theory of culture", The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays, Basic Books, New York, NY, pp.3-30.
[Manual request] [Infotrieve]
Glaser, B.G., Strauss, A.L. (1999), The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, Aldine De Gruyter, New York, NY, (originally published in
1967), .
[Manual request] [Infotrieve]
Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B. (1990), "Measuring organizational cultures: a qualitive and quantitive study across twenty cases", Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 35 No.2,
Emerald Insight | The dos and don'ts of writing a journal article http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=1770655
4 of 5 06-Aug-14 12:52 PM
pp.286-316.
[Manual request] [Infotrieve]
Miles, R.E., Snow, C.C. (1978), "Organizational strategy, structure, and process", Academy of Management Review, Vol. 3 No.3, pp.546-62.
[Manual request] [Infotrieve]
Sykes, W. (1991), "Taking stock: issues from the literature on validity and reliability in qualitative research", Journal of the Market Research Society, Vol. 33 No.1, pp.3-12.
[Manual request] [Infotrieve]
Yin, R.K. (2008), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 4th ed., Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA, .
[Manual request] [Infotrieve]
Corresponding author
Tauno Kekle can be contacted at: tke@uwasa.fi
About Emerald
About Us
Company Information
Working for Emerald
Contact Us
How to find us
Policies & Information
Cookie Policy
Kbart
Privacy Policy
Copyright Policy
Industry Standards
Accessibility
Emerald Websites
Emerald Group Publishing
Emerald Management First
Emerald Bookstore
Emerald Careers
ASLIB
The Emerald Foundation
Pathways to Information Leadership
NetworkedScholar

Emerald Group Publishing Limited .
Emerald Insight | The dos and don'ts of writing a journal article http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=1770655
5 of 5 06-Aug-14 12:52 PM