From recurring problems in scientific publications to a heuristic framework for quality control of the research and writing process
Abstract
The quality of a scientific publication depends not only on the clarity of the writing but also on the soundness of the decisions made at all stages of the research process. This paper examines recurring methodological, writing, ethical, and publication-related issues reported in the relevant literature and investigates how these can be transformed into a practical framework for quality control of the research and writing process in educational research. The study was conducted as an integrative review employing a conceptual and methodological synthesis of 14 purposively selected publications. Their findings were organized and compared according to common categories related to stages of the research and writing process and types of errors. The synthesis highlighted recurring problems related to the formulation of the research question, research design, data collection and analysis, presentation and interpretation of results, bibliographic citations, language, ethics, and the publication process. Based on these findings, a framework comprising nine dimensions and 66 self-assessment and peer-review questions was developed. The framework is proposed as a heuristic and reflective tool rather than as a universal evaluation system, to support the early identification of potential weaknesses and enhance research transparency and quality.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Appelbaum, M., Cooper, H., Kline, R. B., Mayo-Wilson, E., Nezu, A. M., & Rao, S. M. (2018). Journal article reporting standards for quantitative research in psychology: The APA Publications and Communications Board task force report. American Psychologist, 73(1), 3-25. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000191.
Bhende, V. V., Sharma, T. S., Krishnakumar, M., Ramaswamy, A. S., Bilgi, K., & Mankad, S. P. (2024). Decoding the rejection code: Understanding why articles get axed. Cureus, 16(3), e56920. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.56920.
Carlino, P. (2012). Helping doctoral students of education to face writing and emotional challenges in identity transition. In M. Castelló & C. Donahue (Eds), University writing: Selves and texts in academic societies (pp. 217-234). Emerald Group Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1572-6304(2012)0000024016.
Choy, L. T. (2014). The strengths and weaknesses of research methodology: Comparison and complimentary between qualitative and quantitative approaches. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 19(4, Version III), 99-104.
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). (n.d.). Artificial intelligence and authorship. https://publicationethics.org/news-opinion/artificial-intelligence-and-authorship.
Dantas-Torres, F. (2022). Top 10 reasons your manuscript may be rejected without review. Parasites & Vectors, 15, 418. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-022-05543-w.
Darling, H. (2024). Statistical errors in scientific research: A narrative review. Cancer Research, Statistics, and Treatment, 7(2), 241-249. https://doi.org/10.4103/crst.crst_283_23.
Dimitriadou, S., Athanassopoulos, S., Komis, V., Papadakis, S., & Lavidas, K. (2026). Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education: A systematic review across academic disciplines. Review of Science, Mathematics and ICT Education, 20(1), 129-173. https://doi.org/10.26220/rev.5651.
Dogra, S. (2011). Why your manuscript was rejected and how to prevent it? Indian Journal of Dermatology, Venereology and Leprology, 77(2), 123-127. https://doi.org/10.4103/0378-6323.77449.
Ezeala, C. C., Nweke, I. N., & Ezeala, M. O. (2013). Common errors in manuscripts submitted to medical science journals. Annals of Medical and Health Sciences Research, 3(3), 376-379. https://doi.org/10.4103/2141-9248.117957
Faber, J. (2017). Writing scientific manuscripts: Most common mistakes. Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics, 22(5), 113-117. https://doi.org/10.1590/2177-6709.22.5.113-117.sar.
Gastel, B., & Day, R. A. (2022). How to write and publish a scientific paper (9th ed.). Greenwood.
Gjersvik, P., Gulbrandsen, P., Aasheim, E. T., & Nylenna, M. (2013). Poor title--poor manuscript?. Tidsskrift for den Norske laegeforening : tidsskrift for praktisk medicin, ny raekke, 133(23-24), 24752477. https://doi.org/10.4045/tidsskr.13.1077.
Harris, A. J. L. (2023). Guidelines on manuscript format, structure, and style: Avoiding editorial holdups in the publication process. Bulletin of Volcanology, 85, Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00445-022-01619-8.
Healey, M., Matthews, K. E., & Cook-Sather, A. (2019). Writing scholarship of teaching and learning articles for peer-reviewed journals. Teaching & Learning Inquiry, 7(2), 28-50. https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.7.2.3.
Iskander, J. K., Wolicki, S. B., Leeb, R. T., & Siegel, P. Z. (2018). Successful scientific writing and publishing: A step-by-step approach. Preventing Chronic Disease, 15, E79. https://doi.org/10.5888/pcd15.180085.
Kahlke, R. M. (2014). Generic qualitative approaches: Pitfalls and benefits of methodological mixology. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 13(1), 37-52. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940691401300119.
Levitt, H. M., Bamberg, M., Creswell, J. W., Frost, D. M., Josselson, R., & Suárez-Orozco, C. (2018). Journal article reporting standards for qualitative primary, qualitative meta-analytic, and mixed methods research in psychology: The APA Publications and Communications Board task force report. American Psychologist, 73(1), 26-46. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000151.
Makin, T. R., & Orban de Xivry, J.-J. (2019). Ten common statistical mistakes to watch out for when writing or reviewing a manuscript. eLife, 8, e48175. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.48175.
Maiorana, F. A., & Mayer, H. F. (2018). How to avoid common errors in writing scientific manuscripts. European Journal of Plastic Surgery, 41(4), 489-494. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00238-018-1418-z.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Daniel, L. G. (2003). Typology of analytical and interpretational errors in quantitative and qualitative educational research. Current Issues in Education, 6, 1-51. https://cie.asu.edu/ojs/index.php/cieatasu/article/view/1609.
Oplatka, I. (2021). Eleven pitfalls in qualitative research: Some perils every emerging scholar and doctoral student should be aware of! The Qualitative Report, 26(6), 1881-1890. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2021.4783.
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., . . . Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71.
Schroter, S., Black, N., Evans, S., Godlee, F., Osorio, L., & Smith, R. (2008). What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them? Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1258/jrsm.2008.080062.
Thompson, B. (1998). Five methodology errors in educational research: The pantheon of statistical significance and other faux pas. Paper presented at Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA, United States.
Van Noorden, R. (2023). More than 10,000 research papers were retracted in 2023 — A new record. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-03974-8.
Watt, F. M. (2023). How to avoid mistakes in science publications. EMBO Reports, 24, e57887. https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.202357887.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.26220/mje.5709
View Counter: Abstract | 0 | times, and PDF | 0 | times
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Mediterranean Journal of Education | ISSN: 2732-6489 | Department of Educational Sciences and Early Childhood Education - University of Patras.
Pasithee | Library & Information Center | University of Patras