Desperately seeking structure: Is it a journal paper or a report?

I somehow agreed to peer review three manuscripts this month. It was a lot. Over the years I’ve developed a system that works well for me…but that is a topic for another month. On my mind today is a trend I noticed among the three papers…even more evident after paraphrasing my comments for this blog. Spoiler! There is confusion about how to structure a journal paper.

✏️ Manuscript #1:

• Is written in the format of a report or instruction manual. Revise into paragraph format.
• Overall, the paper lacks structure—it is written like a report...What is the core argument / thesis / central idea of this paper? Without clearly stating the argument, the paper lacks motivation for the reader.

✏️ Manuscript #2:

• The paper needs to be restructured in the style of a journal paper. The easiest first step would be to remove third-level subheadings and reduce lists.
• More concerning is that the paper lacks a clear framework—it is written as a patchwork of topics in the format of a report.
• My main comment is that findings include too much raw data. This section is very long and could be synthesized and organized more concisely. Findings in a journal paper should report key findings that support the core argument. As is, the authors report all the collected data in simple summaries. 

✏️ Manuscript #3:

• This paper lacks a clear structure and an overarching research question or aim—and a core argument (thesis). Without this, the structure of the paper collapses and there is no motivation for the paper. Otherwise, it reads like an historic report or a textbook.
• Reduce subsections: it reads more like a report than a journal paper.
• The findings section is written like a report or narrative…At this point it is still unclear what the motivation or aim of the study was. Again, a core argument is needed.

Repeatedly, I see confusion in how to structure a journal paper. Now, I’m not referring to the IMRAD layout—Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion sections. What concerns me is lack of macro-structure: a core argument around which the main ideas are organized. Top reasons papers are rejected is due to lack of a core argument and poorly organized structure.

Great research doesn’t automatically translate to a great journal paper. It requires thoughtful crafting. I wonder if part of the problem is simply the IMRAD format: it’s easy to assume that you can take your research proposal (with its extensive Introduction and descriptive Methods) and tack on Findings (all the data) and a Discussion (brief speculation about implications) and voilà! a journal paper! If that is your approach, then you have successfully written a report worthy to send your funding agency. But a journal paper, you have not written.

Some of us might get away with publishing a report under the guise of a journal paper, but I suspect it is because the reviewers did not fully understand what macro-structure should look like either. Despite years of training and experience, we are rarely taught how to actually write a journal paper. The void is evident. And, unfortunately, ambiguity breeds ambiguity.

Thus, the topic this month: How a journal paper is different from a report and other academic outputs…

---

In my second year of grad school, I collaborated on a journal paper. I had taken the responsibility to be first of four authors. We had a pile of qualitative interviews and spent six months coding and analyzing and making sense of the data. It was so much data! And we had solid results. I was excited to share all this new information with the academic community! After drafting the introduction, I met my advisor to make sure I was on track. I was so excited! So many results, so many implications, so many ideas—I was ready to relinquish it to the world!

I sat down at the round table in my advisors’ office; she sat opposite to me. Our co-authors were there too—another grad student and her advisor. I got ready for praise and encouragement to continue writing. My advisor held the draft in her hands, and she said simply, ‘Ok, but what is the point of this paper?’

What is the point?!? It’s obviously about this important social problem! It’s obvious—isn’t it?

Confused, I returned to my computer and focused the introduction more specifically on the social problem. Then, met my advisor, again. And she said, again, ‘I still don’t get it. What is the purpose of this paper?’

This went on for a few more months—mainly because I was busy with classes and assignments with real deadlines. But eventually, I found the language she was looking for—I stumbled upon the articulation of my singular idea or, rather, my core argument. With her nod of approval, I finished writing. I published our paper. And I moved on, but without really understanding the essential need for a core argument, without which, a paper collapses. 

---

Does this story resonate with you? Is this also how you learned to write a journal paper? Can you actually articulate what is fundamentally different between a journal paper and other academic outputs? Yay if you can! If not, join the ambiguity club. 

Simply, other outputs can have a core argument, but they don’t have to. A journal paper must. A core argument is the main idea around which the paper is structured (within the IMRAD or similar format). Here is a cheat sheet highlighting some macro-structure differences of other outputs compared to a journal paper:

Book Chapter: aligns and extends the book topic or theme and usually relies on surrounding chapters. Ask the editor for any instructions! You might (be asked to) summarize the literature on a particular topic, provide a case example, describe a concept or theory including definitions, report on research, or take some other approach. Book chapters can be narrative or instructive and may or may not follow the IMRAD format.

Thesis or Dissertation: a comprehensive (and long) piece of writing that comes in many formats (as per the requirements of the respective advisor(s)). An important distinction from a journal paper (besides length) is that it can have many ideas. Another distinction is that the literature review is typically comprehensive for the purpose of conveying (proving) the new knowledge base of the student. Hypotheses or assumptions are often explicit, but a concluding argument is typically only included in the final chapter(s) if at all.

Report: typically a comprehensive (long or short) piece of writing that comes in many formats (funding agencies might specify requirements). An important distinction from a journal paper is that it can (and usually) includes raw data, the results from multiple stages or different types of analysis, and key findings with extensive or creative policy or practical implications. Typically, all results are reported; it is descriptive and usually without an argument. Reports can be long and speculative or brief and application based.

Conference Paper / Presentation: often written or presented before the completion of a research project to gain feedback and direction; this form of academic output can serve as a useful beginning stage for writing a full journal paper. The format and contents are heavily influenced by the discipline. Like a book chapter, there are many approaches to writing or putting together a conference presentation.

I thought I would play around with a table to give you a snapshot of some of the differences in structure and contents of different types of academic writing as compared to a journal paper. Note that I created it quickly, off-the-cuff. 

One last comment that I want to make regards non-Western journal paper text structures. My goal is to bring you some clarity about Western, English-language journal paper structure. Yet, I expect some of you are ESL and have experience (or aspiration) to publish in a non-Western journal. On that topic: there is no universal journal paper structure. One implication is that if you have published in a non-Western journal, direct translation to a Western journal is problematic (I’m referring only to structure—copyright is a separate topic). Another implication of variations in structure (i.e., it is not universal) is that it is not innate; therefore, it can be learned. The problem is that how to write a journal paper is rarely taught. We, therefore, must educate ourselve, which is what I hope you feel you have started (or continued) doing here today.

I’ll end this blog with some final words of guidance. If nothing else, know that your journal paper collapses without a core argument to bring coherence to its structure. Let me reiterate as clearly as possible: A journal paper is an academic text comprising a core argument around which the main idea is organized into a clear structure. Top reasons papers get rejected are due to problems with one or both of these. If you are lucky, and a reviewer kindly recommends a major revision (instead of rejection), heed my advice: your first and primary task is to fix, improve, develop, articulate, surface, or inspire your core argument. Then re-structure everything around it. Only then move on to other tasks.

To that end, check out the video freebie this month: Argument & Structure: Your BFF’s to drafting a strong journal paper