Computer AND Chemistry

This guide aims to help you write a research paper.

by Experiment-Resources.com (2008)

It contains an overview on writing academic papers such as the term paper, thesis, research paper or other academic essays written in the format of the research paper.

We have tried to integrate thoughts from the APA-format and the MLA-format.

GENERAL OVERVIEW
Many students wonder about the writing process itself. The outline of the academic paper is very similar for most branches of science.
Creating an extended outline may help structure your thoughts, especially for longer papers. Here are a few samples outlines for research papers.

We have also created a couple of articles with general tips and help on research papers.

When writing a scientific paper, you will need to adjust to the academic format. The APA writing style is one example of an academic standard frequently used.

By the way, here is another great resources on how to write a research paper.

PREPARING TO WRITE A RESEARCH PAPER
Usually, the purpose of a research paper is known before writing it. It can formulated as a research paper question, a thesis statement or a hypothesis statement.
If you do not know what to write about, you will have to look for ideas for research paper topics.

STRUCTURE OF A RESEARCH PAPER
The structure of a research paper might seem quite stiff, but it serves a purpose: It will help find information you are looking for easily and also help structure your thoughts and communication.
Here is an example of a research paper. Here’s another sample research paper.

An empiric paper frequently follows this structure:
•Title
•Abstract
•Introduction
•Methodology
•Results
•Discussion
•Conclusion
•References

ADDITIONAL PARTS FOR SOME ACADEMIC PAPERS
The following parts may be acceptable to include in some scientific standards, but may be inappropriate for other standards.

•Table of Contents (Usually placed right before or right after the abstract)
•Acknowledgments (Sometimes placed before the abstract and sometimes at the end of a paper)
•Appendices (Placement: After all the other parts)

OTHER TECHNICAL ISSUES OF ACADEMIC WRITING
When correcting papers, we have been surprised by the many students struggling with intext citations. Although the standards are somewhat different, citations in the text should not be too difficult to master. The most used standards for referencing in research papers are APA-standard and MLA-standard.
Some paper formats allow you to include footnotes in the text, while some do not allow footnotes.

Authors frequently want to include tables and figures in the text.

Sometimes the format or standard prohibits the authors from entering tables and figures directly into the text (where you want your table). Sometimes they have to be included after the main text.

STANDARDS AND FORMATS
Please observe that most scientific fields (and paper formats) have their own specific rules and standards of writing.
You will have to check with your faculty or school to know exactly how to write the paper – the guide is meant as an overview of academic papers in general.

PUBLISH ARTICLES
Publication of your article can be a very time-consuming process.
After writing the academic paper, the researchers submit it to a journal. Typically you start with the most regarded journal and then work yourself down the list, until a journal accepts the article.

Scientific journals use peer review process, which is a panel of other researchers (most likely in the same field) who review the work, to ensure that the quality of the paper.

Publication bias is a well known phenomenon, as the peer review process often rejects “null results”. A journal rejection does not necessarily mean that you do not have a chance to resubmit the journal though.
•Advantages of peer reviews
•Disadvantages of peer reviews
by Experiment-Resources.com (2008).

Read more: http://www.experiment-resources.com/write-a-research-paper.html#ixzz1VLnUvHpO

Paul T. P. Wong, Ph.D., C.Psych.
Research Director, Graduate Program in Counselling Psychology
Trinity Western University
Langley, BC, Canada

Most students and beginning researchers do not fully understand what a research proposal means, nor do they understand its importance. To put it bluntly, one’s research is only as a good as one’s proposal. An ill-conceived proposal dooms the project even if it somehow gets through the Thesis Supervisory Committee. A high quality proposal, on the other hand, not only promises success for the project, but also impresses your Thesis Committee about your potential as a researcher.

A research proposal is intended to convince others that you have a worthwhile research project and that you have the competence and the work-plan to complete it. Generally, a research proposal should contain all the key elements involved in the research process and include sufficient information for the readers to evaluate the proposed study.

Regardless of your research area and the methodology you choose, all research proposals must address the following questions: What you plan to accomplish, why you want to do it and how you are going to do it.

The proposal should have sufficient information to convince your readers that you have an important research idea, that you have a good grasp of the relevant literature and the major issues, and that your methodology is sound.

The quality of your research proposal depends not only on the quality of your proposed project, but also on the quality of your proposal writing. A good research project may run the risk of rejection simply because the proposal is poorly written. Therefore, it pays if your writing is coherent, clear and compelling.

This paper focuses on proposal writing rather than on the development of research ideas.

Title:

It should be concise and descriptive. For example, the phrase, “An investigation of . . .” could be omitted. Often titles are stated in terms of a functional relationship, because such titles clearly indicate the independent and dependent variables. However, if possible, think of an informative but catchy title. An effective title not only pricks the reader’s interest, but also predisposes him/her favourably towards the proposal.

Abstract:

It is a brief summary of approximately 300 words. It should include the research question, the rationale for the study, the hypothesis (if any), the method and the main findings. Descriptions of the method may include the design, procedures, the sample and any instruments that will be used.

Introduction:

The main purpose of the introduction is to provide the necessary background or context for your research problem. How to frame the research problem is perhaps the biggest problem in proposal writing.

If the research problem is framed in the context of a general, rambling literature review, then the research question may appear trivial and uninteresting. However, if the same question is placed in the context of a very focused and current research area, its significance will become evident.

Unfortunately, there are no hard and fast rules on how to frame your research question just as there is no prescription on how to write an interesting and informative opening paragraph. A lot depends on your creativity, your ability to think clearly and the depth of your understanding of problem areas.

However, try to place your research question in the context of either a current “hot” area, or an older area that remains viable. Secondly, you need to provide a brief but appropriate historical backdrop. Thirdly, provide the contemporary context in which your proposed research question occupies the central stage. Finally, identify “key players” and refer to the most relevant and representative publications. In short, try to paint your research question in broad brushes and at the same time bring out its significance.

The introduction typically begins with a general statement of the problem area, with a focus on a specific research problem, to be followed by the rational or justification for the proposed study. The introduction generally covers the following elements:

1. State the research problem, which is often referred to as the purpose of the study.
2. Provide the context and set the stage for your research question in such a way as to show its necessity and importance.
3. Present the rationale of your proposed study and clearly indicate why it is worth doing.
4. Briefly describe the major issues and sub-problems to be addressed by your research.
5. Identify the key independent and dependent variables of your experiment. Alternatively, specify the phenomenon you want to study.
6. State your hypothesis or theory, if any. For exploratory or phenomenological research, you may not have any hypotheses. (Please do not confuse the hypothesis with the statistical null hypothesis.)
7. Set the delimitation or boundaries of your proposed research in order to provide a clear focus.
8. Provide definitions of key concepts. (This is optional.)

Literature Review:

Sometimes the literature review is incorporated into the introduction section. However, most professors prefer a separate section, which allows a more thorough review of the literature.

The literature review serves several important functions:

1. Ensures that you are not “reinventing the wheel”.
2. Gives credits to those who have laid the groundwork for your research.
3. Demonstrates your knowledge of the research problem.
4. Demonstrates your understanding of the theoretical and research issues related to your research question.
5. Shows your ability to critically evaluate relevant literature information.
6. Indicates your ability to integrate and synthesize the existing literature.
7. Provides new theoretical insights or develops a new model as the conceptual framework for your research.
8. Convinces your reader that your proposed research will make a significant and substantial contribution to the literature (i.e., resolving an important theoretical issue or filling a major gap in the literature).

Most students’ literature reviews suffer from the following problems:

• Lacking organization and structure
• Lacking focus, unity and coherence
• Being repetitive and verbose
• Failing to cite influential papers
• Failing to keep up with recent developments
• Failing to critically evaluate cited papers
• Citing irrelevant or trivial references
• Depending too much on secondary sources

Your scholarship and research competence will be questioned if any of the above applies to your proposal.

There are different ways to organize your literature review. Make use of subheadings to bring order and coherence to your review. For example, having established the importance of your research area and its current state of development, you may devote several subsections on related issues as: theoretical models, measuring instruments, cross-cultural and gender differences, etc.

It is also helpful to keep in mind that you are telling a story to an audience. Try to tell it in a stimulating and engaging manner. Do not bore them, because it may lead to rejection of your worthy proposal. (Remember: Professors and scientists are human beings too.)

Methods:

The Method section is very important because it tells your Research Committee how you plan to tackle your research problem. It will provide your work plan and describe the activities necessary for the completion of your project.

The guiding principle for writing the Method section is that it should contain sufficient information for the reader to determine whether methodology is sound. Some even argue that a good proposal should contain sufficient details for another qualified researcher to implement the study.

You need to demonstrate your knowledge of alternative methods and make the case that your approach is the most appropriate and most valid way to address your research question.

Please note that your research question may be best answered by qualitative research. However, since most mainstream psychologists are still biased against qualitative research, especially the phenomenological variety, you may need to justify your qualitative method.

Furthermore, since there are no well-established and widely accepted canons in qualitative analysis, your method section needs to be more elaborate than what is required for traditional quantitative research. More importantly, the data collection process in qualitative research has a far greater impact on the results as compared to quantitative research. That is another reason for greater care in describing how you will collect and analyze your data. (How to write the Method section for qualitative research is a topic for another paper.)

For quantitative studies, the method section typically consists of the following sections:

1. Design -Is it a questionnaire study or a laboratory experiment? What kind of design do you choose?
2. Subjects or participants – Who will take part in your study ? What kind of sampling procedure do you use?
3. Instruments – What kind of measuring instruments or questionnaires do you use? Why do you choose them? Are they valid and reliable?
4. Procedure – How do you plan to carry out your study? What activities are involved? How long does it take?

Results:

Obviously you do not have results at the proposal stage. However, you need to have some idea about what kind of data you will be collecting, and what statistical procedures will be used in order to answer your research question or test you hypothesis.

Discussion:

It is important to convince your reader of the potential impact of your proposed research. You need to communicate a sense of enthusiasm and confidence without exaggerating the merits of your proposal. That is why you also need to mention the limitations and weaknesses of the proposed research, which may be justified by time and financial constraints as well as by the early developmental stage of your research area.

Common Mistakes in Proposal Writing

1. Failure to provide the proper context to frame the research question.
2. Failure to delimit the boundary conditions for your research.
3. Failure to cite landmark studies.
4. Failure to accurately present the theoretical and empirical contributions by other researchers.
5. Failure to stay focused on the research question.
6. Failure to develop a coherent and persuasive argument for the proposed research.
7. Too much detail on minor issues, but not enough detail on major issues.
8. Too much rambling — going “all over the map” without a clear sense of direction. (The best proposals move forward with ease and grace like a seamless river.)
9. Too many citation lapses and incorrect references.
10. Too long or too short.
11. Failing to follow the APA style.
12. Slopping writing.

Here are some general notes on writing:

The abstract should provide a good summary of what you did and what you found; it should be valuable in the absence of the rest of the paper (it may be the only source of your work that a reader is able to access). It should begin with a clear statement of objectives and end with a clear conclusion. Where possible, state what you found and allow the reader to infer what you did; this enables you to communicate considerable specific information (including means and P values), without exceeding word limits.

The introduction should provide a brief context and justification regarding what is known and what you plan to do; it should not be an exhaustive review of the literature. It should end with a clear statement of the objectives. As a general rule, it should not exceed 2 pages (double spaced).

In materials and methods, you must describe what you did in sufficient detail that a competent investigator could repeat your work. Also, this section and the results section should be ‘mirror images’ of one another; if you said that you did it, you must report the results, and if you report the results, you must have said you did it. I find it very helpful to write materials and methods and results at the same time, going back and forth between the two sections to ensure agreement.

In the text of the results section, you should refer to and highlight the information that you have presented in tables and figures; however, you should not repeat all the data you have presented in tables and figures (you simply refer the reader to the tables and figures and give a brief summary of what is there). Furthermore, the results section is for presentation of your findings, NOT for discussion and interpretation of your findings; that belongs in the discussion. Furthermore, you are not supposed to report data or findings in the discussion that you have not already presented in the results.

Never say ‘The data showed….’ Rather, say: We inferred…., We concluded…., Our interpretation was….

Either cite a P value (abstract and results) or say ‘significant’ (discussion), but don’t do both.

In the discussion, the general approach is that you briefly repeat what you found (it really should be a summary; a detailed description belongs in the results, and in most cases, you should not refer to specific tables or figures) and then you interpret this in the context of the literature, how it is similar or different from previous reports and what you think it means. It is noteworthy that for each topic, the specific order of presentation is your work, the literature, then your interpretation; use this sequence most of the time (it highlights your work by putting it first; don’t emphasize the literature by citing it before you cite your work).

Although the results section should very closely follow materials and methods, in the discussion, you have relatively more freedom in terms of the order of presentation.

In the discussion, I recommend that you identify the key findings (usually there is a maximum of 6 in a manuscript), rank them in decreasing order of importance, and then present the most important information finding first (typically that will be your findings regarding the objectives/hypotheses), then the second most important, etc. Thereafter, discuss individual animals with unusual outcomes and other matters that are less important than the major findings of the paper. Finally, finish with a strong concluding paragraph, summarizing the most important findings. Do not finish by saying ‘more work is needed; this is not news to anyone! It is rare to include a literature citation in the final paragraph; you are not making new statements, you are simply summarizing the key findings.

In the discussion, as much as possible, try to discuss one item completely, and then move on to the next item. It may take more than one paragraph to discuss one item, and that’s fine. They key is to avoid what I call ‘back and forth’, where you discuss one item, then you discuss one or more other items, and then you come back to the first item. It is not always possible to discuss an item in its entirety and then move on, as some items are inter-connected and you necessarily have to discuss them more than once.

Dr. Kastelic

You can configure Windows XP to automate the logon process if your computer is not part of a domain.

1. Click Start, click Run, and type control userpasswords2.

2. Clear the Users must enter a username and password to use this computer check box.

3. Click Apply.

4. Enter the user name and password you wish to automatically log on with, and then click OK.

5. Click OK again and you’re all done.

This feature allows other users to start your computer and use the account that you establish to automatically log on. Enabling auto logon makes your computer more convenient to use, but can pose a security risk.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/setup/learnmore/tips/knox2.mspx

This is an useful article.
–
It’s polite to write a “thank you” letter each time you receive a present. You can also write emails to thank people, but it’s still considered more “personal” to write a short letter by hand.
……

http://www.english-at-home.com/real-life-english/writing-thank-you-letters-and-emails/

This is the first article of this site.
This site is about Computer and Chemistry.