RESEARCH METHODOLOGY & IPR

UNIT- II
EFFECTIVE LITERATURE STUDIES APPROACHES, ANALYSIS
The literature studies is an important part of most research proposals. Appropriateness of the  literature  studies is  one
component identified under challenge   criterion  and  refers  to demonstrating clearly the aim and importance
of our proposed research. There is often a tendency to approach the literature review  as  a collection of
summaries of papers. An effective literature studies is much more  use of ideas in the literature to justify the particular
approach to a topic, the selection of research methods and  demonstration that the proposed research will contribute
something new. The literature studies is an informative,  critical  and useful synthesis of  a  particular topic that
helps:  identify  what  is known (and unknown)  in the  subject  area;  identify areas of controversy, knowledge  gaps
or  debate  and formulate questions  that need further research. A good literature studies is an analysis of the literature,
not a summary.
The fundamental goal of a literature studies in a research proposal is to understand  the  relationship between the
various contributions.
The guideline are as follows
1.Find literature associated with the topic.
2. Search and analyze the literature.
3. Evaluate the paper before reading.
4. Cite literature properly.
5. Make a summary table of reviewed papers.
6. Avoid plagiarism.
7. Write a journal article based on literature review

PLAGIARISM
Many people think of plagiarism as copying another's work or borrowing someone else's original ideas. But terms like
"copying" and "borrowing" can disguise the seriousness of the offense:
Plagiarize" means:
 to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own
 to use (another's production) without crediting the source
 to commit literary theft
 to present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source
Plagiarism is an act of fraud. It involves both stealing someone else's work and lying about it afterward.
All of the following are considered plagiarism:
 turning in someone else's work as your own
 copying words or ideas from someone else without giving credit
 failing to put a quotation in quotation marks
 giving incorrect information about the source of a quotation
 changing words but copying the sentence structure of a source without giving credit
 copying so many words or ideas from a source that it makes up the majority of your work, whether you give credit or not.
Most cases of plagiarism can be avoided, by citing sources. Simply acknowledging that certain material has been
borrowed and providing your audience with the information necessary to find that source is usually enough to prevent
plagiarism.
What about images, videos, and music?
Using an image, video or piece of music in a work you have produced without receiving proper permission or
providing appropriate citation is plagiarism. The following activities are very common in today’s society. Despite their
popularity, they still count as plagiarism.
Copying media (especially images) from other websites to paste them into your own papers or websites.
Making a video using footage from others’ videos or using copyrighted music as part of the soundtrack.
Performing another person’s copyrighted music (i.e., playing a cover).
Composing a piece of music that borrows heavily from another composition.
These media pose situations in which it can be challenging to determine whether or not the copyrights of a work are
being violated.
For example: A photograph or scan of a copyrighted image (for example: using a photograph of a book cover to
represent that book on one’s website)
Recording audio or video in which copyrighted music or video is playing in the background.
Re-creating a visual work in the same medium.
(for example: shooting a photograph that uses the same composition and subject matter as someone else’s photograph)
Re-creating a visual work in a different medium (for example: making a painting that closely resembles another
person’s photograph).
Re-mixing or altering copyrighted images, video or audio, even if done so in an original way.
The legality of these situations, and others, would be dependent upon the intent and context within which they are
produced. The two safest approaches to take in regards to these situations is:
1) Avoid them altogether or
2) Confirm the works’ usage permissions and cite them properly.
Turnitin, Urukund and Plagaria are name of commonly used softwares to check plagiarism.

RESEARCH ETHICS
Ethics should be applied on all stages of research, such as planning, conducting and evaluating a research project. The
first thing to do before designing a study is to consider the potential cost and benefits of the research. We evaluate the
cost and benefits for most decisions in life, whether we are aware of it or not.
Ethics should be applied on all stages of research, such as planning, conducting and evaluating a research project.
The first thing to do before designing a study is to consider the potential cost and benefits of the research.
This can be quite a dilemma in some experiments. Stem cell research is one example of an area with difficult ethical
considerations.
Ethical Standards - Researchers Should.........
 avoid any risk of considerably harming people, the environment, or property unnecessarily. The Study and
testing of nuclear weapons, missiles are examples of a study which violated these standards of environment
hazards.
 obtain informed consent from all involved in the study.
 preserve privacy and confidentiality whenever possible.
 take special precautions when involving populations or animals which may not be considered to understand
fully the purpose of the study.
 not offer big rewards or enforce binding contracts for the study. This is especially important when people are
somehow reliant on the reward.
 not plagiarize the work of others
 not skew their conclusions based on funding.
 not commit science fraud, falsify research or otherwise conduct scientific misconduct. A study, which
devastated the public view of the subject for decades, was the study of selling more coke and popcorn by
unconscious ads. The researcher said that he had found great effects from subliminal messages, whilst he had,
in fact, never conducted the experiment.
 not use the position as a peer reviewer to give peer reviews to punish or damage fellow scientists.
Research must follow all regulations given, and also anticipate possible ethical problems in their research.
Competition is an important factor in research, and may be both a good thing and a bad thing.

EFFECTIVE TECHNICAL WRITING

After collecting and analyzing the data, the researcher has to accomplish the task of drawing inferences
followed by report writing. Interpretation refers to the task of drawing inferences from the collected facts after an
analytical and/or experimental study. Interpretation is essential for the simple reason that the usefulness and utility of
research findings lie in proper interpretation. It is being considered a basic component of research process because of
the following reasons.
(i)It is through interpretation that the researcher can well understand the abstract principle that works beneath his
findings. Through this he can link up his findings with those of other studies, having the same abstract principle, and
can predict about the concrete world of events. Fresh inquiries can test these predictions later on. This way the
continuity in research can be maintained.
(ii) Interpretation leads to the establishment of explanatory concepts that can serve as a guide for future research
studies; it opens new avenues of intellectual adventure and stimulates the quest for more knowledge.
(iii) Researcher can better appreciate only through interpretation why his findings are what they are and can make
others to understand the real significance of his research findings.
Researcher must pay attention to the following points for correct interpretation:
(i) At the outset, researcher must invariably satisfy himself that (a) the data are appropriate, trustworthy and adequate
for drawing inferences; (b) the data reflect good homogeneity and (c) proper analysis has been done through statistical
methods.
(ii) The researcher must remain cautious about the errors that can possibly arise in the process of interpreting results.
Errors can arise due to false generalization and/or due to wrong interpretation of statistical measures, such as the
application of findings beyond the range of observations, identification of correlation with causation and the like.
Another major pitfall is the tendency to affirm that definite relationships exist on the basis of confirmation of particular
hypotheses.
(iii) As such researcher must take the task of interpretation as a special aspect of analysis and accordingly must take all
those precautions that one usually observes while going through the process of analysis viz., precautions concerning
the reliability of data, computational checks, validation and comparison of results.
(iv) He must never lose sight of the fact that his task is not only to make sensitive observations of relevant occurrences,
but also to identify and disengage the factors that are initially hidden to the eye. This will enable him to do his job of
interpretation on proper lines.
(v) There should be constant interaction between initial hypothesis, empirical observation and theoretical
conceptions. It is exactly in this area of interaction between theoretical orientation and
empirical observation that opportunities for originality and creativity lie.
Technical writing is a process by which technical information is presented through written documents that is ‘user
friendly’. The scope of technical documentation is vast and includes everything from email to reports, through the help
of a user guide. Most people read the documented manuals only when other sources of help do not work. This may be
the reason that some of the documentation are poorly prepared.
Software companies are of the opinion that their software is user friendly that calls no need for any manual
documentation. However, creating technical documentation is less expensive compared to technical support.
The following are some steps to follow in order to create an effective documentation:
Step 1:
To identify the purpose of creating the documentation and the audience for whom it is being prepared. You must be
clear in your objective behind creating the documentation and the person(s) who is going to rely on it. Your
documentation will be different if a general car mechanic is going to be the audience rather than an software engineer.
Step 2:
The person who is responsible for creating the documentation is generally a writer and not an expert in that field. It is
necessary to collect all the types of information and facts about the subject to document it.Gathering information means
conducting your own research, having a word with an expert, and experimenting with the product.
Step 3:
Organize the information and create an outline. To help you start, you can use an existing document. Consider using a
predefined template. Fill in the information as you need and leave the other areas blank as you move forward. Continue
to jot down the related topics which allow you to go back in fill in the blanks as you go and lets you compare to the
current information you have. This will help you keep a track of all the topics that are covered and even those that are
yet to be covered.
Step 4:
After your outline is complete, start preparing a draft. While creating the draft, start filling in the blanks and any other
information that needs to be filled. While preparing the draft, it is recommended to allow your ideas to flow freely.
You must avoid interrupting or attempting to manipulate the ideas that are flowing or to revise any fact provided.
Step 5:
After you have completed the first draft, pay more attention to things that are important. You may shorten or extend
various sections of the draft. You may also rearrange the sentences, paragraphs or even an entire topic if you feel that
something is not right in the logical flow of ideas. You may try to improve your grammar, word usage, or even the
styling of the document.
The role of a technical writer is a important. To execute your role in a competent manner, you must be both
knowledgeable and skilled in your area of expertise. As a good writer it is important to be aware of the rules of writing,
the subject, and the optimum usage of writing tools. Being knowledgeable and skilled are aspects that is beneficial to
posses.
Having knowledge means that you are familiar about various writing techniques, about the subject, and the different
writing tools. If you are skilled, then it means that you can write effectively and use the writing tools to good effect. In
other words, skill is your application of your knowledge.
 It is a fact that good writers are good readers. There are many books available that teach good practices for technical
writing and for learning software programs used for technical writing. In addition to books, you can attend classes or
seminars for the same topic. Seminars can be beneficial and you can learn from them.

HOW TO WRITE REPORT AND PAPER

Research reports are the product of slow, painstaking, accurate inductive work. The steps involved in writing report
are: (a) logical analysis of the subject-matter (b) preparation of the final outline (c) preparation of the rough draft (d)
rewriting and polishing (e) preparation of the final bibliography and (f) writing the final draft.

Logical analysis of the subject matter: It is the first step which is primarily concerned with the development of a
subject. There are two ways in which to develop a subject (i) logically and (ii) chronologically. The logical
development is made on the basis of mental connections and associations between the one thing and another by means
of analysis. Logical treatment often consists in developing the material from the simple possible to the most complex
structures.
Chronological development is based on a connection or sequence in time or occurrence. The directions for doing or
making something usually follow the chronological order.

Preparation of the final outline: It is the next step in writing the research report “Outlines are the framework upon
which long written works are constructed. They are an aid to the logical organization of the material and a reminder of
the points to be stressed in the report.

Preparation of the rough draft: This follows the logical analysis of the subject and the preparation of the final outline.
Such a step is of utmost importance for the researcher now sits to write down what he has done in the context of his
research study. He will write down the procedure adopted by him in collecting the material for his study along with
various limitations faced by him, the technique of analysis adopted by him, the broad findings and generalizations and
the various suggestions regarding the problem concerned.

Rewriting and polishing of the rough draft: This step requires more time than the writing of the rough draft. While
rewriting and polishing, one should check the report for weaknesses in logical development or presentation. Researcher
should check the mechanics of writing—grammar, spelling and usage.

Preparation of the final bibliography: The bibliography, which is generally appended to the research report, is a list of
books pertinent to the research work. It should contain all those works which the researcher has consulted. The
bibliography should be arranged alphabetically and may be divided into two parts; the first part may contain the names
of books and pamphlets, and the second part may contain the names of magazine and newspaper articles. Generally,
this pattern of bibliography is considered convenient and satisfactory from the point of view of reader.The entries in
bibliography should be made adopting the following order:
For books and pamphlets the order may be as under:
1. Name of author, last name first.
2. Title, underlined to indicate italics.
3. Place, publisher, and date of publication.
4. Number of volumes.
Example
Kothari, C.R., Quantitative Techniques, New Delhi, Vikas Publishing House Pvt. Ltd., 1978.
For magazines and newspapers the order may be as under:
1. Name of the author, last name first.
2. Title of article, in quotation marks.
3. Name of periodical, underlined to indicate italics.
4. The volume or volume and number.
5. The date of the issue.
6. The pagination.
Example
Robert V. Roosa, “Coping with Short-term International Money Flows”, The Banker, London,
September, 1971, p. 995.
The above examples are just the samples for bibliography entries and may be used, but one should also remember that
they are not the only acceptable forms. The only thing important is that, whatever method one selects, it must remain
consistent.

Writing the final draft: This constitutes the last step. The final draft should be written in a concise and objective style
and in simple language, avoiding vague expressions such as “it seems”, “there may be”, and the like ones. Illustrations
and examples based on common experiences must be incorporated in the final draft as they happen to be most effective
in communicating the research findings to others. A research report should not be dull, but must enthuse people and
maintain interest and must show originality. Every report should be an attempt to solve some intellectual problem and
must contribute to the solution of a problem and must add to the knowledge of both the researcher and the reader.

LAYOUT OF THE RESEARCH REPORT

Anybody, who is reading the research report, must be conveyed enough about the study so that he can place it in its
scientific context, judge the adequacy of its methods and form an opinion of how seriously the findings are to be taken.
For this purpose there is the need of proper layout of the report. The layout of the report means what the research report
should contain. A comprehensive layout of the research report should comprise (A) preliminary pages; (B) the main
text; and (C) the end matter.
(A) Preliminary Pages
In preliminary pages the report should carry a title and date, followed by acknowledgements in the form of ‘Preface’ or
‘Foreword’. Then there should be a table of contents followed by list of tables and illustrations so that the decision-
maker or anybody interested in reading the report can easily locate the required information in the report.
(B) Main Text
The main text provides the complete outline of the research report along with all details. Title of the research study is
repeated at the top of the first page of the main text and then follows the other details on pages numbered
consecutively, beginning with the second page. Each main section of the report should begin on a new page. The main
text of the report should have the following sections:
(i) Introduction; (ii) Statement of findings and recommendations; (iii) The results; (iv) The implications
drawn from the results; and (v) The summary.
(i) Introduction: It introduces the research project to the readers. It should contain a clear statement of the objectives of
research i.e., enough background should be given to make clear to the reader why the problem was considered worth
investigating. A brief summary of other relevant research may also be stated so that the present study can be seen in
that context. The hypotheses of study, if any, and the definitions of the major concepts employed in the study should be
stated.
The methodology adopted in conducting the study must be fully explained. How was the study carried out? What was
its basic design? If the study was an experimental one, then what were the experimental manipulations? If the data
were collected by means of questionnaires or interviews, then exactly what questions were asked? If measurements
were based on observation, then what instructions were given to the observers? Regarding the sample used in the study
the reader should be told: Who were the subjects? How many were there? How were they selected? All these questions
are crucial for estimating the findings. The statistical analysis adopted must be clearly stated. The scope of the study
should be stated and the boundary lines be demarcated. The various limitations, under which the research project was
completed, must also be narrated.
(ii) Statement of findings and recommendations: The research report must contain a statement of findings and
recommendations in non-technical language so that it can be easily understood. If the findings happen to be extensive,
at this point they should be put in the summarised form.
(iii) Results: A detailed presentation of the findings of the study, with supporting data in the form of tables and charts
together with a validation of results, is the next step in writing the main text of the report. This generally comprises the
main body of the report, extending over several chapters. The result section of the report should contain statistical
summaries and reductions of the data. All the results should be presented in logical sequence and splitted into readily
identifiable sections. All relevant results must find a place in the report.
(iv) Implications of the results: Toward the end of the main text, the researcher should again put down the results of
his research clearly and precisely. He should, state the implications that flow from the results of the study, for the
general reader is interested in the implications for understanding the human behaviour. Such implications may have
three aspects as follows:
(a) A statement of the inferences drawn from the present study.
(b) The conditions of the present study which may limit the extent of legitimate generalizations
of the inferences drawn from the study.
(c) Thc relevant questions that still remain unanswered or new questions raised by the study
along with suggestions for the kind of research that would provide answers for them.
(v) Summary: We conclude the research report with a very brief summary, resting in brief the research problem, the
methodology, the major findings and the major conclusions drawn from the research results.
(C) End Matter
At the end of the report, appendices should be enlisted in respect of all technical data such as questionnaires, sample
information, mathematical derivations and the like ones. Bibliography of sources consulted should also be given. Index
(an alphabetical listing of names, places and topics along with the numbers of the pages in a book or report on which
they are mentioned or discussed) should invariably be given at the end of the report. The value of index lies in the fact
that it works as a guide to the reader for the contents in the report.

HOW TO WRITE A RESEARCH REPORT

There are very definite and set rules which should be followed in the actual preparation of the research report or paper.
The following points deserve mention so far as the writing a report are concerned:
1.Size and physical design: The manuscript should be written on unruled paper 8.5" × 11" in size. If it is to be written
by hand, then black or blue-black ink should be used. A margin of at least one and one-half inches should be allowed at
the left hand and of at least half an inch at the right hand of the paper. There should also be one-inch margins, top and
bottom. The paper should be neat and legible.
2. Procedure: Various steps in writing the report should be strictly adhered.
3. Layout: Keeping in view the objective and nature of the problem, the layout of the report should be thought of and
decided and accordingly adopted.
4. Treatment of quotations: Quotations should be placed in quotation marks and double spaced, forming an immediate
part of the text. But if a quotation is of a considerable length (more than four lines) then it should be single-spaced and
indented at least half an inch to the right of the normal text margin.
5. The footnotes: Regarding footnotes one should keep in view the followings:
(a) The footnotes serve two purposes viz., the identification of materials used in quotations in the report and the notice
of materials not immediately necessary to the body of the research text. So footnotes are meant for cross references,
citation of authorities and sources, acknowledgement and elucidation or explanation of a
point of view. The modern tendency is to make the minimum use of footnotes.
(b) Footnotes are placed at the bottom of the page on which the reference or quotation which they identify or
supplement ends. Footnotes are customarily separated from the textual material by a space of half an inch and a line
about one and a half inches long.
(c) Footnotes should be numbered consecutively, usually beginning with 1 in each chapter separately. The number
should be put slightly above the line, say at the end of a quotation.
At the foot of the page, again, the footnote number should be indented and typed a little above the line.
(d) Footnotes are always typed in single space though they are divided from one another by double space.
6. Documentation style: Regarding documentation, the first footnote reference to any given work should be complete in
its documentation, giving all the essential facts about the edition used. Such documentary footnotes follow a general
sequence. The common order may be described as under:
(i) Regarding the single-volume reference
1. Author’s name in normal order followed by a comma;
2. Title of work, underlined to indicate italics;
3. Place and date of publication;
4. Pagination references (The page number).
Example
John Gassner, Masters of the Drama, New York: Dover Publications, Inc. 1954, p. 315.
(ii) Regarding multivolumed reference
Author’s name in the normal order;
2. Title of work, underlined to indicate italics;
3. Place and date of publication;
4. Number of volume;
5. Pagination references (The page number).
(iii) Regarding works arranged alphabetically
For works arranged alphabetically such as encyclopedias and dictionaries, no pagination
reference is usually needed. In such cases the order is illustrated as under:
Example 1
“Salamanca,” Encyclopaedia Britannica, 14th Edition.
Example 2
“Mary Wollstonecraft Godwin,” Dictionary of national biography.
But if there should be a detailed reference to a long encyclopedia article, volume and
pagination reference may be found necessary.
(iv) Regarding periodicals reference
1. Name of the author in normal order;
2. Title of article, in quotation marks;
3. Name of periodical, underlined to indicate italics;
4. Volume number;
5. Date of issuance;
6. Pagination.
(v) Regarding anthologies and collections reference
Quotations from anthologies or collections of literary works must be acknowledged not
only by author, but also by the name of the collector.
(vi) Regarding second-hand quotations reference
In such cases the documentation should be handled as follows
1. Original author and title;
2. “quoted or cited in,”;
3. Second author and work.
Example
J.F. Jones, Life in Ploynesia, p. 16, quoted in History of the Pacific Ocean area, by R.B. Abel,
p. 191.
(vii) Case of multiple authorship
If there are more than two authors or editors, then in the documentation the name of only the first is given and the
multiple authorship is indicated by “et al.” or “and others”. Subsequent references to the same work need not be so
detailed as stated above. If the work is cited again without any other work intervening, it may be indicated as ibid,
followed by a comma and the page number. A single page should be referred to as p., but more than one page as pp.
7. Punctuation and abbreviations in footnotes: The first item after the number in the footnote is the author’s name,
given in the normal signature order. This is followed by a comma. After thecomma, the title of the book is given: the
article (such as “A”, “An”, “The” etc.) is omitted and only the first word and proper nouns and adjectives are
capitalized. The title is followed by a comma. Information concerning the edition is given next. This entry is followed
by a comma. The place of publication is then stated; it may be mentioned in an abbreviated form, if the place happens
to be a famous one such as Lond. for London, N.Y. for New York, N.D. for New Delhi and so on. This entry is
followed by a comma. Then the name of the publisher is mentioned and this entry is closed by a comma. It is followed
by the date of publication if the date is given on the title page.
The following is a partial list of the common abbreviations frequently used in report-writing:
anon., anonymous
ante., before
art., article
aug., augmented
bk., book
bull., bulletin
cf., compare
ch., chapter
col., column
diss., dissertation
ed., editor, edition, edited.
ed. cit., edition cited
e.g., exempli gratia: for example
eng., enlarged
et.al., and others
et seq., et sequens: and the following
ex., example
f., ff., and the following
fig(s)., figure(s)
fn., footnote
ibid., ibidem: in the same place (when two or more successive footnotes refer to the
same work, it is not necessary to repeat complete reference for the second
footnote. Ibid. may be used. If different pages are referred to, pagination
must be shown).
id., idem: the same
ill., illus., or
illust(s). illustrated, illustration(s)
Intro., intro., introduction
l, or ll, line(s)
loc. cit., in the place cited; used as op.cit., (when new reference
loco citato: is made to the same pagination as cited in the previous note)
MS., MSS., Manuscript or Manuscripts
N.B., nota bene: note well
n.d., no date
n.p., no place
no pub., no publisher
no(s)., number(s)
o.p., out of print
op. cit: in the work cited (If reference has been made to a work
opera citato and new reference is to be made, ibid., may be used, if intervening
reference has been made to different works, op.cit. must be used. The
name of the author must precede.
p. or pp., page(s)
passim: here and there
post: after
rev., revised
tr., trans., translator, translated, translation
vid or vide: see, refer to
viz., namely
vol. or vol(s)., volume(s)
vs., versus: against
8. Use of statistics, charts and graphs: A judicious use of statistics in research reports is often considered a virtue for it
contributes a great deal towards the clarification and simplification of the material and research results. Statistics are
usually presented in the form of tables, charts, bars and line-graphs and pictograms. Statistical presentation should be
neat and attractive.
9. The final draft: Revising and rewriting the rough draft of the report should be done with great care before writing the
final draft. For the purpose, the researcher should put to himself questions like: Are the sentences written in the report
clear? Are they grammatically correct? Do they say what is meant’? Do the various points incorporated in the report fit
together logically? “Having at least one colleague read the report just before the final revision is extremely helpful.
Sentences that seem crystal-clear to the writer may prove quite confusing to other people; a connection that had seemed
self evident may strike others as a non-sequitur. A friendly critic, by pointing out passages that seem unclear or
illogical, and perhaps suggesting ways of remedying the difficulties, can be an invaluable aid in achieving the goal of
adequate communication.”6
10. Bibliography: Bibliography should be prepared and appended to the research report as discussed
earlier.
11. Preparation of the index: At the end of the report, an index should invariably be given, the
value of which lies in the fact that it acts as a good guide, to the reader. Index may be prepared both
as subject index and as author index. The former gives the names of the subject-topics or concepts
along with the number of pages on which they have appeared or discussed in the report, whereas the
latter gives the similar information regarding the names of authors. The index should always be
arranged alphabetically.
PRECAUTIONS FOR WRITING RESEARCH REPORTS
Research report is a channel of communicating the research findings to the readers of the report. It must be
prepared keeping the following precautions in view:
1. While determining the length of the report one should keep in view the fact that it should be long enough to cover
the subject but short enough to maintain interest.
2. A research report should be such as to sustain reader’s interest.
3. Abstract terminology and technical jargon should be avoided in a research report. The report should be able to
convey the matter as simply as possible.
4. Readers are often interested in acquiring a quick knowledge of the main findings and as such the report must provide
a ready availability of the findings. For this purpose, charts, graphs and the statistical tables may be used for the
various results in the main report.
5. The layout of the report should be in accordance with the objective of the research problem.
6. The reports should be free from grammatical mistakes and must be prepared strictly in accordance with the
techniques of composition of report-writing such as the use of quotations, footnotes, documentation, proper
punctuation and use of abbreviations in footnotes and the like.
7. The report must present the logical analysis of the subject matter. It must reflect a structurewherein the different
pieces of analysis relating to the research problem fit well.
8. A research report should show originality and should necessarily be an attempt to solve some intellectual problem. It
must contribute to the solution of a problem and must add to the store of knowledge.
9. Towards the end, the report must also state the policy implications relating to the problem under consideration. It is
usually considered desirable if the report makes a forecast of the probable future of the subject concerned and indicates
the kinds of research still needs to be done.
10. Appendices should be enlisted in respect of all the technical data in the report.
11. Bibliography of sources consulted is a must for a good report and must necessarily be given.
12. Index is also considered an essential part of a good report and must be prepared and appended at the end.
13. Report must be attractive in appearance, neat and clean, whether typed or printed.
14. Calculated confidence limits must be mentioned and the various constraints experienced in conducting the research
study may also be stated in the report.
15. Objective of the study, the nature of the problem, the methods employed and the analysis techniques adopted must
all be clearly stated in the beginning of the report in the form of introduction.

DEVELOPING A RESEARCH PROPOSAL

What is a research proposal?
A research proposal provides a detailed plan of a research project before you undertake the research.
A proposal is usually submitted before you undertake research for a final dissertation during postgraduate study, and
before or during doctoral studies. A proposal may also be submitted as part of an application for a funding grant.
What to include in a research proposal
A research proposal will usually (but not always) include the following key elements:
An outline of the background and context of the research topic / issue
Reasons why the specific topic / issue is important (rationale)
A review of key literature related to the topic / issue
An outline of the intended research methodology (including consideration of ethical issues)
A discussion of ethical issues 
How the findings will be disseminated
A timescale for the research
Writing Research Proposal
It is important to follow specific guidance given by your department or funding body when writing your own research
proposal for a dissertation or Ph.D. application, but the following can be used as general guidance.
Title / working title of the research
An initial idea of the title should be given - this is likely to be revised as the research progresses and can therefore be a
tentative suggestion at the proposal stage.
Introduction
The context and background of the research topic / issue, as well as the rationale for undertaking the research, should
be outlined in the introduction section. Reference to key literature should be included to strengthen the rationale for
conducting the research. This will enable the reader to understand what the research will be about and why it is
important.
At the end of the introduction, include an outline (or synopsis) of how the proposal is organized.
Literature review
This should expand on the key literature referred to in the introduction. The review of the literature will need to go
further than listing individual studies or theories. You will need to demonstrate an awareness of the current state of
knowledge and an understanding of key lines of argument and debates on the topic / issue.
The literature will need to be critically analysed and evaluated rather than just described. This means demonstrating
how studies, arguments and debates are linked and how the existing body of research links to your own research area /
issue.
Research aims and questions
The research aims and research questions should be used to guide your research. The aims of the research relate to the
purpose of conducting the research and what you specifically want to achieve. The research questions should be
formulated to show how you will achieve the aims of the research and what you want to find out. The research aims
and questions can either be stated at the end of the introduction (before the outline of the proposal) or after the
literature review - guidance from your department / funding body may specify this.
Methodology
The methodology section of the proposal should outline how the research will be conducted. This should generally
include a description and justification of: sample / participants, methods, data collection and analysis, and ethical
considerations. To justify the chosen methodology, you can refer to recommended reading for research methods as well
as previous studies conducted on your chosen topic.
Ethics
Including a detailed discussion of the ethics of your research project can really strengthen the proposal. It forces you to
think in very practical and detailed terms about what you are planning to do.  
Timescale
You may be required to include a schedule or plan of how you intend to conduct the research within a specified
timeframe. This can be presented in a variety of ways but should generally include specific milestones (e.g. collection
of data, analysis of findings) and intended completion dates.
Reference list
The reference list should include all sources cited in the research proposal. Departmental guidelines for referencing
should be followed for in-text citations and the reference list.

FORMAT OF RESEARCH PROPOSAL

1) Title
Title of a research proposal is the most important component of the whole research proposal report. The length of this
title should be less than 25 words and it should describe the purpose of the research using fewest possible words.
Choose the title of your research proposal after adequate deliberation, because this part of the research proposal is read
first and build the interest of the reader.
2) Abstract
An abstract is the second most read section of a research proposal. The length of this section must be between 300-500
words. This section contains important information from each section of the research proposal report. Writing a to the
point and well-structured abstract is not an easy job. Therefore, you should write your abstract after finish writing your
whole research proposal report. Proofread it and also get it proofread by your mentor and edit if you find any
ambiguities in it.
3) Table of Content
In this section, you will write the headings and sub-headings of your research proposal report. An accurate table of
content help readers to find any information quickly. You can find various formats for writing a table of content.
Otherwise, if you are writing your research proposal report using Microsoft Office you can generate an automatic table
of content by using accurate headings.
Here is an example of a table of content
Heading 1
Heading 1
2.1 Subheading 1
2.1.1 Subheading 2
2.1.1.1 Subheading 3
2.1.2 Subheading 2
2.2 Subheading 2
3 Heading 1
And so on.
Above example will help you to understand how to correct table of content correctly.
4) Introduction
This section will include all basic and introductory information about your research proposal topic. Information in this
section can help your reader to get familiar with your search topic. The length of an introduction should be between
500-700 words.
You can also use diagrams and images to provide a better understanding of your field of research.
5) Statement of the problem or Objective
This section is usually 100-150 words long. In this section, you will elaborate your objective to conduct research. You
will talk about the problems in the existing techniques and will also mention what you propose to overcome those
problems.
You will mention the list of tasks that you intend to perform to reach your proposed solution. It should be highly-
focused and most importantly feasible.  Write this section after a lot of deliberation, because your whole research will
depend on it. A properly defined problem makes easy to conduct research further.
6) Literature Review
This is one of the longest sections of your research proposal report. In this section, you will provide brief details of the
information that you have gained by reading review papers, research papers, books related to your research topic,
published articles, etc.
Make sure to refer each of your literature correctly and include correct and precise information. It will take you a really
long time to read all the relevant literature.
Therefore, you should start reviewing literature as soon as you decide your topic of research. If you don’t want to get
into the trouble of reading everything all over again, I will suggest you make notes about each paper you read. Using
this tip, you can write your literature review quickly.
7) Hypothesis
A hypothesis is a tentative statement about the outcome of the research performed. You will base your hypothesis on
the basis of your literature review.
You will form your hypothesis by reading the outcomes of similar researches. It is not necessary that your results
should be in accord with your hypothesis. There are chances that you may get different results.
In such a scenario, you can conclude your research with a negative outcome. However, writing hypothesis is not an
easy task.  Writing a hypothesis requires a lot of skills and practice. It plays an important role to decide the success of
your research. The length of a hypothesis lies between 100-150 words.
8) Sampling methods and techniques
In this section, you will mention the type of participants and number of participants and on what basis did you select a
particular sample. You will provide the all required information related to sampling and its techniques. the length of
this section can be between 200-300 words,
9) Methodology
In this section, you will elaborate on your methodologies you will use to conduct research. This section is technical
section. Make sure you are aware of all the terminologies you used in this section.
The size of this section lies between 500-600 words. It can also exceed this limit depending on the type of your
research methodologies used.
10) Ethical and Legal consideration
In this section, you will mention all the required approvals that you have got from various departments. It could be
related to human or animal participants or it could be about the use of a particular drug.
This section is usually part of medical or biology researches.
11) Time Schedule
In this section, you will mention the expected time duration within which you will complete your research and make a
report on it. in this section, you will allocate time to various segments of your research such as literature review,
sampling, report writing, etc.
The length of this section lies between 100-200 words.
12) Terminologies
In this section, you will provide a simple explanation of all technical words and jargons used in the research. This
section is important because it will help readers to understand your research proposal report better. The length of this
section depends on the number of terminologies used in report writing.
13) References
In the last section, you will make the list of everything that you have referred to write your report. There are a number
of formats that you can find in the reference section of the Microsoft office word document. You are suggested to use
the only format that has been mentioned in the guidelines for writing a research proposal.
In addition to this, you can also cite reference wherever you have used in the text of the report. In this way, people can
easily refer to literature that you used in your research proposal writing.

PRESENTATION OF RESEARCH PAPER

1.Introduction
Give the brief introduction of your work. For example, if you are going to work on a disease than describe the disease.
Focus on the things on which you have worked on. If you are working on genes of that disease then it will be important
discuss the genetic pathways of the disease in your introduction.
You may discuss the “problem” on which you have worked on during your research.
Focus on the relevant information
Do not more than 3 slides on the introduction
2.Methodology
It’s about the recipe and spices of your research work. Mention all the materials that were required to do the task and
how miraculously you did it.  Using flowcharts in your PowerPoint slides can help you to present it in the more
engaging way.Try to fit it in 2 slides only. Emphasis on any special equipment or  build that you have used during your
work.
3.Objectives
Tell your audience about the verifiable objectives you had while doing this research. It doesn’t matter if they vary from
your results, it is necessary to tell the audience what were you looking for.
Consume only one slide
Make it concise
You are allowed to use fancy words or good vocabulary here
4.Results and Discussion
Write down your results, most possibly in the form of the table. Try not to confuse your audience with so much
numerical data so charts will work fine. Highlight if you have something novel in your results.
5.Conclusion
Try to interpret your results in 2-3 points. The conclusion must be very meaningful for audiences. It must not be
ambiguous. Usually, a single statement is enough.
Future Recommendations
What can be done more on your particle topic? This is very important if you are going to pursue the same topic in your
further studies. It will help you to have a future objective for yourself.
Tips for Research Paper Presentations
There should be 5*5 rules in each slide. I.e. there are five words in one sentence and there should be five lines on one
slide.
Data should be in the form of small key points or bullets. Data should not be in paragraph form on the slide. It should
be precise. Slides are not for the audience it just hints for the presenter. The presenter should explain all terms and
every concept that is written on slide.
Standard heading size is 44 while standard text size is 32.
Make link of one slide with the second slide during the presentation. For example, tell the audience what they will
listen and see in next slide.
The template of PowerPoint presentation should not have shocking color. Text color should be in contrast with
template color. If somewhere in slides text color is same as template audience would not be able to see what is written
on it.
There should be slide number on every slide except title slide.
All slides should be in homogeneity. The presenter should use either upper case or lower case alphabets in the text of
the whole presentation.
There should be the use of animations but no use of transitions.
There should be a table of content of presentation on the slide next to title slide. By explaining this presenter should
give an overview of the whole presentation.
ASSESSMENT OF PAPER BY A REVIEWER
Try to respond to invitations promptly - it will prevent delays. Many journals don't provide criteria for reviews. In this
case, you may familiarize yourself with examples of other reviews done for the journal, which the editor should be able
to provide or rely on your own style.
Other journals require a more formal approach. Sometimes they will ask you to address specific questions in review via
a questionnaire. Or they might want you to rate the manuscript on various attributes using a scorecard. In both Cases
you should compile comments to authors and possibly confidential ones to editors only.
The First Read-Through
Following the invitation to review, when you'll have received the article abstract, you should already understand the
aims, key data and conclusions of the manuscript. The first read-through will help you form an initial impression of the
paper and get a sense of whether your eventual recommendation will be to accept or reject the paper.

First Read Considerations

Try to bear in mind the following questions - they'll help you form your overall impression:
How original is the topic? What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?
Is the paper well written? Is the text clear and easy to read?
Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented? Do they address the main question posed?
If the author is disagreeing significantly with the current academic consensus, do they have a substantial case? If not,
what would be required to make their case credible? Do tables or figures aid understanding or are they superfluous?
Spotting Potential Major Flaws
Examples of possibly major flaws include:
 Drawing a conclusion that is contradicted by the author's own statistical or qualitative evidence
 The use of a discredited method
 Ignoring a process that is known to have a strong influence on the area under study
 If experimental design features prominently in the paper, first check that the methodology is sound - if not, this
is likely to be a major flaw.
You may examine:
 The sampling in analytical papers
 The sufficient use of control experiments
 The precision of process data
 The regularity of sampling in time-dependent studies
 The validity of questions, the use of a detailed methodology and the data analysis being done systematically (in
qualitative research)
 That qualitative research extends beyond the author's opinions, with sufficient descriptive elements and
appropriate quotes from interviews or focus groups
 Major Flaws in Information
 If methodology is less of an issue, you look at the data tables, figures or images first. If there are critical flaws,
the manuscript will need to be rejected. Such issues include:
 Insufficient data
 Statistically non-significant variations
 Unclear data tables
 Contradictory data that either are not self-consistent or disagree with the conclusions
 Confirmatory data that adds little, if anything, to current understanding - unless strong arguments for such
repetition are made
 If you find a major problem, note your reasoning and clear supporting evidence (including citations).
Rejection After the First Reading
Even if you know an article has serious flaws, make sure you read the whole paper because you may find some positive
aspects that can be communicated to the author which help them to correct in future submissions.
Before Starting the Second Read-Through
The purpose of the second, read-through is to help prepare the manuscript for publication. The benchmark for acceptance is
whether the manuscript makes a useful contribution to the knowledge base or understanding of the subject matter.
Doing the Second Read-Through
As you're reading through the manuscript for a second time, you'll need to keep in mind the argument's construction,
the clarity of the language and content.
You may to consider:
 Does the title properly reflect the subject of the paper?
 Does the abstract provide an accessible summary of the paper?
 Do the keywords accurately reflect the content?
 Is the paper an appropriate length?
 Are the key messages short, accurate and clear?
 Check the Language
 The text’s meaning is clear.
 If the language is poor but you understand the core message, suggest improvements to fix the problem:
 If you spot grammatical errors that affect clarity of meaning, then it's important to highlight these.
The Second Read-Through: Section by Section Guidance
1. The Introduction
A well-written introduction:
Sets out the argument
Summarizes recent research related to the topic
Highlights gaps in current understanding or conflicts in current knowledge
Establishes the originality of the research aims by demonstrating the need for investigations in the topic area
Gives a clear idea of the target readership, why the research was carried out and the novelty and topicality of the
manuscript
Originality and Topicality
Originality and topicality can only be established in the light of recent authoritative research. For example, it's
impossible to argue that there is a conflict in current understanding by referencing articles that are 10 years old.
Authors may make the case that a topic hasn't been investigated in several years and that new research is required. This
point is only valid if researchers can point to recent developments in data gathering techniques or to research in
indirectly related fields that suggest the topic needs revisiting. Clearly, authors can only do this by referencing recent
literature. Obviously, where older research is seminal or where aspects of the methodology rely upon it, then it is
perfectly appropriate for authors to cite some older papers.
Editors say, "Is the report providing new information; is it novel or just confirmatory of well-known outcomes?"
Aims
It's common for the introduction to end by stating the research aims. By this point you should already have a good
impression of them - if the explicit aims come as a surprise, then the introduction needs improvement.
2. Materials and Methods
Academic research should be replicable, repeatable and robust - and follow best practice.
Replicable Research makes sufficient use of: control experiments, repeated analyses, repeated experiments, sampling.
These are used to make sure observed trends are not due to chance and that the same experiment could be repeated by
other researchers - and result in the same outcome. Statistical analyses will not be sound if methods are not replicable.
Where research is not replicable, the paper should be recommended for rejection.
Repeatable Methods give enough detail so that other researchers are able to carry out the same research. For example,
equipment used or sampling methods should all be described in detail so that others could follow the same steps. 3.
Results and Discussion
This section should tell a coherent story - What happened? What was discovered or confirmed?
Certain patterns of good reporting need to be followed by the author:
They should start by describing in simple terms what the data show
They should make reference to statistical analyses, such as significance or goodness of fit
Once described, they should evaluate the trends observed and explain the significance of the results to wider
understanding. This can only be done by referencing published research
The outcome should be a critical analysis of the data collected
Discussion should always, at some point, gather all the information together into a single whole. Authors should
describe and discuss the overall story formed. If there are gaps or inconsistencies in the story, they should address these
and suggest ways future research might confirm the findings or take the research forward.
4. Conclusions
This section is usually no more than a few paragraphs and may be presented as part of the results and discussion, or in
a separate section. The conclusions should reflect upon the aims - whether they were achieved or not - and, just like the
aims, should not be surprising. If the conclusions are not evidence-based, it's appropriate to ask for them to be re-
written.
5. Information Gathered: Images, Graphs and Data Tables
If you are looking at information from which you cannot discern a story, then you should ask for improvements in
presentation. This could be an issue with titles, labels, statistical notation or image quality.
Where information is clear, you should check that:
 The results seem plausible, in case there is an error in data gathering
 The trends you can see support the paper's discussion and conclusions
 There are sufficient data. For example, in studies carried out over time are there sufficient data points to
support the trends described by the author?
 Whether images have been edited or manipulated to emphasize the story they tell.
6. List of References
You will need to check referencing for accuracy, adequacy and balance.
Accuracy
Where a cited article is central to the author's argument, you should check the accuracy and format of the reference -
and bear in mind different subject areas may use citations differently.
Adequacy
You should consider if the referencing is adequate:
Are important parts of the argument poorly supported? Are there published studies that show similar or dissimilar
trends that should be discussed?
If a manuscript uses half the citations in its field, then reference should be improved. References should be relevant,
recent and readily retrievable.
Balance
Check for a well-balanced list of references that is:
 Helpful to the reader
 Fair to competing authors
 Not over-reliant on self-citation
 Gives due recognition to the initial discoveries and related work that led to the work under assessment
 Able to evaluate whether the article meets the criteria for balanced referencing without looking up every
reference.
7. Plagiarism
If you find a very similar paper due to the author overlooked it in their own literature search Or it is very recent or
published in a journal slightly outside their usual field. You may feel you can advise the author how to emphasize the
novel aspects of study, so as to differentiate it from similar research.
Most editors have access to software that can check for plagiarism.When plagiarism is discovered during peer review it
can be properly addressed ahead of publication. If plagiarism is discovered only after publication, the consequences are
worse for both authors and readers, because a retraction may be necessary.
8. Search Engine Optimization (SEO)
After the detailed read-through, you will be in a position to advise whether the title, abstract and key words are
optimized for search purposes. In order to be effective, good SEO terms will reflect the aims of the research.
A clear title and abstract will improve the paper's search engine rankings and will influence whether the user finds and
then decides to navigate to the main article. The title should contain the relevant SEO terms early on. This has a major
effect on the impact of a paper, since it helps it appear in search results. A poor abstract can then lose the reader's
interest and undo the benefit of an effective title - whilst the paper's abstract may appear in search results, the potential
reader may go no further.
So ask yourself, while the abstract may have seemed adequate during earlier checks, does it:
Do justice to the manuscript in this context?
Highlight important findings sufficiently?
Present the most interesting data?
If there is a formal report format, follow it. This will often comprise a range of questions followed by comment
sections. Try to answer all the questions as the editor felt that they are important. If you're following an informal report
format you could structure your report in three sections: summary, major issues, minor issues.
Summary
Give positive feedback first. Authors are more likely to read your review if you do so. Briefly summarize what the
paper is about and what the findings are.Try to put the findings of the paper into the context of the existing literature
and current knowledge. Indicate the significance of the work and if it is novel or mainly confirmatory
Indicate the work's strengths, its quality and completeness
Major Issues
Are there any major flaws? State what they are and what the severity of their impact is on the paper
Has similar work already been published without the authors acknowledging this?
Are the authors presenting findings that challenge current thinking? Is the evidence they present strong enough to
prove their case? Have they cited all the relevant work that would contradict their thinking and addressed it
appropriately?
If major revisions are required, indicate what they are
 Are there any major presentational problems?
 Are figures & tables, language and manuscript structure all clear enough for you to accurately assess the work?
 Are there any ethical issues? If you are unsure it may be better to disclose these in the confidential comments
section
Minor Issues
 Are there places where meaning is ambiguous? How can this be corrected?
 Are the correct references cited? If not, which should be cited instead/also? Are citations excessive, limited, or
biased?
 Are there any factual, numerical or unit errors? If so, what are they?
 Are all tables and figures appropriate, sufficient, and correctly labelled? If not, say which are not

On Presentation and Style

Your review should ultimately help the author improve their article. So be polite, honest and clear. You should also try
to be objective and constructive.
You should also:
 Write clearly and so you can be understood by people whose first language is not English
 Avoid complex or unusual words, especially ones that would even confuse native speakers
 Number your points and refer to page and line numbers in the manuscript when making specific comments
 If you have been asked to only comment on specific parts or aspects of the manuscript, you should indicate
clearly which these are
 Treat the author's work the way you would like your own to be treated

Criticisms & Confidential Comments to Editors

Most journals give reviewers the option to provide some confidential comments to editors. Often this is where editors
will want reviewers to state their recommendation otherwise this area is best reserved for communicating suspected
plagiarism, fraud, unattributed work, unethical procedures, duplicate publication, bias or other conflicts of interest.
Most journals give reviewers the option to provide some confidential comments to editors. Editors will want reviewers
to state their recommendation.Reviewers should check the preferences of individual journals as to where they want
review decisions to be stated. You will normally be asked to indicate your recommendation (e.g. accept, reject, revise
and resubmit, etc.) from a fixed-choice list and then to enter your comments into a separate text box.
Recommending Acceptance
If you're recommending acceptance, give details outlining why, and if there are any areas that could be improved. Don't
just give a short, cursory remark such as 'great, accept'.
Recommending Revision
Where improvements are needed, a recommendation for major or minor revision is typical. You may state whether you
opt in or out of the post-revision review. If recommending revision, state specific changes you feel need to be made.
Recommending Rejection
If recommending rejection or major revision, state this clearly in your review (and see the next section, 'When
recommending rejection').
When Recommending Rejection
Where manuscripts have serious flaws you should not spend any time polishing the review you've drafted or give
detailed advice on presentation.
Editors say, "If a reviewer suggests a rejection, but her/his comments are not detailed or helpful, it does not help the
editor in making a decision."
In your recommendations for the author, you should:
 Give constructive feedback describing ways that they could improve the research
 Keep the focus on the research and not the author.
 Avoid making critical confidential comments to the editor while being polite and encouraging to the author.
They won't get feedback on how to improve their research and it could trigger an appeal
 Remember to give constructive criticism even if recommending rejection. This helps developing researchers
improve their work and explains to the editor why you felt the manuscript should not be published.