Student Scientists Are Publishing Their Research In This Peer-Reviewed Journal

every student must submit their research paper by monday

  • Share article

There’s a consensus in science education that science should be something students actually get to do —that learning how to employ investigative methods to test hypotheses is just as important as understanding the periodic table or being able to diagram a cell.

A group of professional researchers is now working to support that goal, giving teenagers the opportunity to publish their own scientific papers.

The Journal of Emerging Investigators , an open-access publication that publishes original research from middle and high schoolers, was started in 2011 by Harvard University graduate students who thought there should be a way to document the work that school-age researchers were submitting to science fairs. The journal now publishes students from at least 20 countries and is available to read for free online.

The process—of conducting research, getting feedback from working scientists, and seeing one’s own findings in print—is transformative, said Grace Kim, a first year student at Emory University who published her research on COVID’s impact on students’ social, mental, and physical health in JEI in fall 2021. Kim is now an outreach coordinator with the journal.

Before she started her project, she’d had the idea that publishing was something that only adults or doctoral students could do. “You have to research in a university and find these grand results—new things—and share with the world,” she said.

Submitting to JEI showed her that wasn’t the case.

“I was excited to know that I could do something on my own,” she said.

Supporting the thrust of new science standards

The journal also helps support the goal of many states’ expectations for student learning in science. Inquiry and engagement in the scientific process are key parts of the Next Generation Science Standards, released in 2014 and in use in about 20 states. They require that students learn science and engineering practices alongside content knowledge.

Teachers have said that finding ways to have students authentically practice science in class can be challenging—even as science education organizations and curriculum companies put out new materials designed to align to the NGSS.

This year, the journal is on track to publish about 175 papers from middle and high school students in the United States and internationally, said Scott Soldat-Valenzuela, JEI’s executive director.

The submission guidelines for the journal are broad: Any hypothesis-driven experimental research is fair game.

Many of the papers are in natural sciences, but not all, said Soldat-Valenzuela. Earlier this month, for example, they published a paper on socio-economic status correlates with Indian teenagers’ physical activity. “We really want students to write about something that they’re passionate about,” he said.

Opportunities for feedback, collaboration

Students must be in 6th-12th grades when they submit their work, and they need to have a mentor—whether a teacher, parent, or other adult. JEI provides a guide on how to prepare an academic paper, covering details like hypothesis design and how to format figures and tables.

Volunteers—graduate students, post-doctoral students, and other science professionals—review the submissions and provide feedback.

“It’s an advanced experience, but it’s also really educational for them,” said Soldat-Valenzuela. “They’re getting real feedback from a real reviewer.”

The process also puts students in conversation with professional researchers, said Kim.

Her 2021 paper presented survey research that Kim conducted with students at private international schools in South Korea, one of which she attended. Reviewing other literature allowed her to contextualize and compare her results, Kim said, noting the differences in student experiences across countries and socioeconomic statuses.

Kim sought JEI out. She knew she wanted to get more involved in the science community, and she was looking for a way to publish her research. That’s how most submissions come to the journal, said Soldat-Valenzuela.

Now, he said, the team is trying to broaden its outreach to more teachers and students, especially in lower-income communities. It’s started to offer seminars to prepare middle and high schoolers for the submission process and answer any questions. They want to make it clear that anyone with a hypothesis to test can conduct research.

“We’re really focused on the student writing, and learning how to publish their work, and how to communicate their science to other students,” Soldat-Valenzuela said.

A version of this article appeared in the February 01, 2023 edition of Education Week as Student Scientists Are Publishing Their Research in This Peer-Reviewed Journal

Sign Up for EdWeek Update

Edweek top school jobs.

Yuma Police Department forensic technician Heidi Heck shows students in Jonathan Bailey's fifth grade science class at Barbara Hall Elementary School how fingerprints show up under a special light during a presentation about forensic science on March 1, 2023.

Sign Up & Sign In

module image 9

502 Bad Gateway

Rules for All Projects

Regeneron ISEF Ethics Statement Regeneron ISEF Eligibility/Limitations Regeneron ISEF Requirements Continuation of Projects Team Projects Sources

The International Rules and Guidelines for Science Fairs is available at societyforscience.org/ISEF in multiple formats. Familiarity with the rules is critical for students, parents, teachers, mentors, fair directors and local and affiliated fair Scientific Review Committees (SRC) and Institutional Review Boards (IRB).

Ethics Statement

Student researchers, as well as adults who have a role in their projects, are expected to maintain the highest ethical standards. These include, but are not limited to:

  • Integrity . Honesty, objectivity, and avoidance of conflicts of interest are expected during every phase of the research. The project should reflect independent research done by the student(s), and represent only one year’s work.
  • Legality . Compliance with all federal, state and local laws and regulations is essential. In addition, projects conducted outside the U.S. must also adhere to the laws of the country and jurisdiction in which the project was performed. All projects must be approved by a Scientific Review Committee (SRC), and when necessary must also be approved by an Institutional Review Board (IRB), Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC), and/or Institutional Biosafety Committee (IBC).
  • Respect for Confidentiality and Intellectual Property . Confidential communications, as well as patents, copyrights, and other forms of intellectual property must be honored. Unpublished data, methods, or results may not be used without permission, and credit must be given to all contributions to research.
  • Stewardship of the Environment . It is the responsibility of the researcher and the adults involved to protect the environment from harm. Introduction or disposal of non-native, genetically-altered, and/or invasive species, (e.g. insects, plants, invertebrates, vertebrates), pathogens, toxic chemicals or foreign substances into the environment is prohibited. It is recommended that students reference their local, state or national laws and regulations and quarantine lists, including if considering using “catch and release” fishing procedures.
  • Animal Care . Proper care and respect must be given to vertebrate animals. The guiding principles for the use of animals in research includes the following “Four R’s”: Replace, Reduce, Refine, Respect.
  • Human Participant Protection . The highest priority is the health and well-being of the student researcher(s) and human participants.
  • Potentially Hazardous Biological Agents (PHBAs) . It is the responsibility of the student and adults involved in the project to conduct and document a risk assessment, and to safely handle and dispose of organisms and materials.

Scientific fraud and misconduct are not condoned at any level of research or competition. This includes plagiarism, forgery, use or presentation of other researcher’s work as one’s own and fabrication of data. Fraudulent projects will fail to qualify for competition in affiliated fairs and Regeneron ISEF. Society for Science and the Public reserves the right to revoke recognition of a project subsequently found to have been fraudulent.

Eligibility/Limitations

1. Each Regeneron ISEF-affiliated fair may send to Regeneron ISEF the number of projects provided by their affiliation agreement.

2. A student must be selected by an Regeneron ISEF-affiliated fair, and meet both of the following:

  • a. be in grades 9-12 or equivalent; and
  • b. not have reached age 20 on or before May 1 preceding the Regeneron ISEF.

3. English is the official language of the Regeneron ISEF. Student project boards and abstracts must be in English.

4. Each student is only allowed to enter one project. That project may include no more than 12 months of continuous research and may not include research performed before January 2023.

5. Team projects must have no more than three members. Teams competing at Regeneron ISEF must be composed of members who all meet Regeneron ISEF eligibility.

6. Students may compete in only one Regeneron ISEF affiliated fair, except when proceeding to a state/national fair affiliated with the Regeneron ISEF from an affiliated regional fair.

7. Projects that are demonstrations, ‘library’ research or informational projects, and/or ‘explanation’ models or kit building are not appropriate for the Regeneron ISEF.

8. All sciences and engineering disciplines are represented at ISEF and projects compete in one of the 21 categories. Review a complete list of categories and sub-categories with definitions .

9. A research project may be a part of a larger study performed by professional scientists, but the project presented by the student must be only their own portion of the complete study.

Requirements

1. All domestic and international students competing in an Regeneron ISEF-affiliated fair must adhere to all rules as set forth in this document.

2. All projects must adhere to the Ethics Statement above.

3. It is the responsibility of the student and the Adult Sponsor to evaluate the study to determine if the research will require forms and/or review and approval prior to experimentation.

4. Projects must adhere to local, state and U.S. Federal laws, regulations and permitting conditions. In addition, projects conducted outside the U.S. must also adhere to the laws of the country and jurisdiction in which the project was performed.

5. The use of non-animal research methods and alternatives to animal research are strongly encouraged and must be explored before conducting a vertebrate animal project.

6. Introduction or disposal of non-native, genetically-altered, and/or invasive species (e.g. insects, plants, invertebrates, vertebrates), pathogens, toxic chemicals or foreign substances into the environment is prohibited. It is recommended that students reference their local, state or national regulations and quarantine lists.

7. Projects competing at Regeneron ISEF must have an exhibit that adheres to Regeneron ISEF Display & Safety requirements and is visible during all operable hours of the exhibit hall without reliance on electricity or internet connections.

8. All projects must adhere to the requirements of the affiliated fair(s) in which it competes to qualify for participation in Regeneron ISEF. Affiliated fairs may have additional restrictions or requirements. Knowledge of these requirements is the responsibility of the student and Adult Sponsor.

Approval and Documentation

1. Project documentation should begin before experimentation with the current forms available. Projects involving human participants, vertebrate animals, and potentially hazardous biological agents must be reviewed and approved by a local or regional Institutional Review Board (IRB) or Scientific Review Committee (SRC) prior to the start of experimentation. At the start of the project, which may in some cases be prior to experimentation begins, a local or regional Institutional Review Board (IRB) or Scientific Review Committee (SRC) with the ISEF-affiliated fair must review and approve most projects involving human participants, vertebrate animals, and potentially hazardous biological agents. Note: If a project involves the testing of a student designed invention, prototype or concept by a human, an IRB review and approval may be required prior to experimentation. See Human Participants Rules for details.

2. Every student must complete the Student Checklist (1A) , a Research Plan/Project Summary and Approval Form (1B) and review the project with the Adult Sponsor in coordination with completion by the Adult Sponsor of the Checklist for Adult Sponsor (1) .

3. A Qualified Scientist is required for all studies involving Biosafety Lab-2 (BSL-2) potentially hazardous biological agents and DEA-controlled substances and is also required for many human participant studies and many vertebrate animal studies.

4. After initial IRB/SRC approval (if required), any proposed changes in the Student Checklist (1A) and Research Plan/Project Summary must be re-approved before laboratory experimentation/data collection resumes.

5. Projects which are continuations of a previous year’s work and which require IRB/SRC approval must undergo the review process with the current year ResearchPlan/Project Summary prior to experimentation/data collection for the current year.

6. Any continuing project must document that the additional research is new and different. ( Continuation/Research Progression Projects Form (7).

7. If work was conducted in a regulated research institution, industrial setting or any work site other than home, school or field at any time during the current Regeneron ISEF project year, the Regulated Research Institutional/Industrial Setting Form (1C) must be completed and displayed at the project booth.

8. After experimentation, each student or team must submit a (maximum) 250-word, one-page abstract which summarizes the current year’s work. The abstract must describe research conducted by the student, not by the supervising adult(s).

9. A project data book and research paper are not required, but are strongly recommended for judging purposes. Regional or local fairs may require a project data book and/or a research paper.

10. All signed forms, certifications, and permits must be available for review by all regional, state, national and international affiliated fair SRCs in which the student(s) participate. This review must occur after experimentation and before competition.

Digital Paperwork and Signatures

Submission of forms generated by a digital system are allowable under the following conditions:

1. The forms must have the same content and order as the Regeneron ISEF forms.

2. Digital signatures must have a verification system via login and have a time and date stamp to indicate this authentication.

3. Paperwork submitted to Society for Science & the Public for Regeneron ISEF must be scanned and submitted via the online portal.

Continuation/ Research Progression of Projects

1. As in the professional world, research projects may build on work performed previously. A valid continuation project is a sound scientific endeavor. Students will be judged only on laboratory experiment/data collection performed over 12 continuous months beginning no earlier than January 2023 and ending May 2024.

2. Any project based on the student’s prior research could be considered a continuation/research progression project. These projects must document that the additional research is a substantive expansion from prior work (e.g. testing a new variable or new line of investigation). Repetition of previous experimentation with the same methodology and research question, even with an increased sample size, is an example of an unacceptable continuation.

3. The display board and abstract must reflect the current year’s work only. The project title displayed in the finalist’s booth may mention years (for example, “Year Two of an Ongoing Study”). Previous year’s databooks, research papers and supporting documents may be at the booth if properly labeled as such.

4. Longitudinal studies are permitted as an acceptable continuation under the following conditions:

  • a. The study is a multi-year study testing or documenting the same variables in which time is a critical variable. (Examples: Effect of high rain or drought on soil in a given basin, return of flora and fauna in a burned area over time.)
  • b. Each consecutive year must demonstrate time-based change
  • c. The display board must be based on collective past conclusionary data and its comparison to the current year data set. No raw data from previous years may be displayed.

5. All projects must be reviewed and approved each year and forms must be completed for the new year.

6. NOTE: For competition in Regeneron ISEF, the Continuation Research Progression Project Form (7) is required for projects in the same field of study as a previous project. This form must be displayed at the project booth. Retention of all prior years’ paperwork is required and must be presented to the Regeneron ISEF SRC upon request.

Team Projects

1. Team projects compete and are judged in the category of their research at Regeneron ISEF. All team members must meet the eligibility requirements for Regeneron ISEF.

2. Teams must have no more than three members. A team with members from different geographic regions may compete at an affiliated fair of one of its members, but not at multiple fairs. However, each affiliated fair holds the authority to determine whether teams with members outside of a fair’s geographic territory are eligible to compete, understanding that if the team wins the right to attend Regeneron ISEF, all team members’ expenses must be supported by the fair.

  • a. Team membership cannot be changed during a given research year unless there are extenuating circumstances and the local SRC reviews and approves the change, including converting a team project to an individual project or vice versa. Such conversions must address rationale for the change and include a clear delineation between research preceding the change and that which will follow. A memorandum documenting this review and approval should be attached to Form 1A.
  • b. Once a project has competed in a science fair at any level, team membership cannot change and the project cannot be converted from an individual project to a team project or vice versa.
  • c. In a future research year, any project may be converted from an individual to a team project, from a team to an individual project and/or have a change in team membership.

3. Each team is encouraged to appoint a team leader to coordinate the work and act as spokesperson. However, each member of the team should be able to serve as spokesperson, be fully involved with the project, and be familiar with all aspects of the project. The final work should reflect the coordinated efforts of all team members and will be evaluated using the same judging criteria as individual projects.

4. Each team member must submit an Approval Form (1B). Team members must jointly submit the Checklist for Adult Sponsor (1), one abstract, a Student Checklist (1A), a Research Plan/Project Summary and other required forms.

5. Full names of all team members must appear on the abstract and forms.

Sources of Information for ALL Projects

1. United States Patent and Trade Office Customer Service: 1-800-786-9199 (toll-free); 571-272-1000 (local); 571-272-9950 (TTY) uspto.gov uspto.gov/patents/process/index.jsp Conducting a Patent Search:

  • https://patents.google.com/
  • http://www.freepatentsonline.com/
  • https://worldwide.espacenet.com/

2. USPTO Resources

  • 7 Step Search Strategy Guide and Video Tutorial https://www.uspto.gov/learning-resources
  • Pro Bono Program https://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/using-legal-services/pro-bono/patent-pro-bono-program
  • Law School Clinic Certification Program uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/ip-policy/public-information-about-practitioners/law-school-clinic-1
  • USPTO Pro Se Assistance Program https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/newsletter/inventors-eye/pro-se-assistance-program

3. European Patent Office www.epo.org www.epo.org/applying/basics.html

4. Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) Task Forceanstaskforce.gov https://www.fws.gov/program/aquatic-nuisance-species-task-force/documents

5. APHIS https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/wildlifedamage/operational-activities/SA_Invasive/CT_Invasive_species1 Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Invasive Species List

6. Invasive Species Specialist Group http://www.iucngisd.org/gisd / The Global Invasive Species database contains invasive species information supplied by experts from around the world.

7. Invasive Species Information www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/resources/lists.shtml Provides information for species declared invasive, noxious, prohibited, or harmful or potentially harmful.

HUMAN PARTICIPANTS

1. Code of Federal Regulation (CFR), Title 45 (Public Welfare), Part 46-Protection of Human Subjects (45CFR46) https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/regulations/45-cfr-46

2. NIH tutorial, “Protecting Human Research Participants” http://phrp.nihtraining.com/files/PHRP.pdf

3. Belmont Report, April 18, 1979 https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/sites/default/files/the-belmont-report-508c_FINAL.pdf

4. Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. (1999). Washington, DC: AERA, APA, NCME. https://www.apa.org/science/programs/testing/standards

5. American Psychological Association 750 First Street, NE Washington, DC 20002-4242 phone: 202-336-5500; 800-374-2721 www.apa.org Information for students: https://www.apa.org/about/students Information regarding publications: www.apa.org/pubs/index.aspx

6. Educational and Psychological Testing Testing Office for the APA Science Directorate phone: 202-336-6000 email: [email protected] https://www.apa.org/science/programs/testing/

7. The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 (COPPA) (15 U.S.C. §§ 6501–6506) https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/rules/rulemaking-regulatory-reform-proceedings/childrens-online-privacy-protection-rule

VERTEBRATE ANIMALS

Animal Care and Use

1. Laboratory Animals, Institute of Laboratory Animal Research (ILAR), Commission on Life Sciences, National Research https://www.nationalacademies.org/ilar/institute-for-laboratory-animal-research

2. Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, 8 th Edition (2011) http://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/Guide-for-the-Care-and-Use-of-Laboratory-Animals.pdf

3. Guidelines for the Care and Use of Mammals in Neuroscience and Behavioral Research (2003), Institute for Laboratory Animal Research (ILAR) https://www.nap.edu/catalog/10732/guidelines-for-the-care-and-use-of-mammals-in-neuroscience-and-behavioral-research To order these ILAR publications contact: National Academies Press 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20055 phone: 888-624-8373 or 202-334-3313; fax: 202-334-2451 https://www.nap.edu/content/help-with-ordering

4. Federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA) 7 U.S.C. 2131-2157 Subchapter A – Animal Welfare (Parts I, II, III) https://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/animal-welfare-act Document is available from: USDA/APHIS/AC 4700 River Road, Unit 84 Riverdale, MD 20737-1234 email: [email protected] phone: 301-734-7833; fax: 301-734-4978 https://www.nal.usda.gov/awic

5. Guide for the Care and Use of Agricultural Animals in Agricultural Research and Teaching (Agri-Guide) Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International (AAALAC International) https://www.aaalac.org/ https://www.aaalac.org/about/Ag_Guide_3rd_ed.pdf

6. Guidelines for the Use of Fish in Research (2014), American Fisheries Society. www.fisheries.org

7. Euthanasia Guidelines AVMA Guidelines on Euthanasia (2020) American Veterinary Medical Association https://www.avma.org/resources-tools/avma-policies/avma-guidelines-euthanasia-animals

Alternative Research and Animal Welfare

1. The National Library of Medicine provides computer searches through MEDLINE: Reference & Customer Services National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894 888-FIND-NLM or 888-346-3656; 301-594-5983; email: [email protected] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/

2. National Agriculture Library (NAL) provides reference service for materials that document a) Alternative Procedures to Animal Use and b) Animal Welfare. Animal Welfare Information Center National Agriculture Library 10301 Baltimore Avenue, Room 410 Beltsville, MD 20705-2351 phone: 301-504-6212, fax: 301-504-7125 email: [email protected] www.nal.usda.gov/awic

3. Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources (ILAR) provides a variety of information on animal sources, housing and handling standards, and alternatives to animal use through annotated bibliographies published quarterly in ILAR Journal. ILAR — The Keck Center of the National Academies 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 687 Washington, DC 20001 phone: 202-334-2590, fax: 202-334-1687 email: [email protected] https://www.nationalacademies.org/ilar/institute-for-laboratory-animal-research

4. Quarterly bibliographies of Alternatives to the Use of Live Vertebrates in Biomedical Research and Testing may be obtained from:Specialized Information Services NLM/NIH 2 Democracy Plaza, Suite 510 6707 Democracy Blvd., MSC 5467 Bethesda, MD 20892-5467 phone: 301-496-1131; Fax: 301- 480-3537 email: [email protected] https://www.nlm.nih.gov/

5. Johns Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT) has worked with scientists since 1981 to find new methods to replace the use of laboratory animals in experiments, reduce the number of animals tested, and refine necessary tests to eliminate pain and distress. email: [email protected] https://caat.jhsph.edu/

6. Quality Assurance Manuals (for appropriate species) Such as: Poultry: https://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/CAT87798868/PDF Beef: https://www.bqa.org/Media/BQA/Docs/nationalmanual.pdf Pork: https://porkgateway.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/pork-quality-assurance1.pdf

HAZARDOUS CHEMICALS, ACTIVITIES OR DEVICES

General Lab/Chemical Safety

1. Safety in Academic Chemistry Laboratories, Volumes 1 and 2, 2003. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society. Order from (first copy free of charge): American Chemical Society Publications Support Services 1155 16th Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 phone: 202- 872-4000 or 800-227-5558 email: [email protected] https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/education.html

2. General Howard Hughes Medical Institute has resources for working with cell cultures, radioactive materials and other laboratory materials. http://www.hhmi.org/developing-scientists/resources

3. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) website for green chemistry www.epa.gov/greenchemistry

4. Safety and Data Sheets (SDS) https://www.flinnsci.com/safety/ A directory of SDS sheets from Flinn Scientific Inc. that includes a ranking of hazard level and disposal methods.

www.ilpi.com/msds/index.html – A listing of numerous sites that have free downloads of SDS sheets.

NFPA (National Fire Protection Association) 704 Standard for guidance on Chemical Reactivity and Instability: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFPA_704

5. Pesticides National Pesticide Information Center http://npic.orst.edu/ingred/ptype/natbio.html Describes the various types of pesticides and the legal requirements for labelling. Provides links and phone numbers to get additional information. Environmental Protection Agency http://iaspub.epa.gov/apex/pesticides/f?p=PPLS:1 A database of product labels. Enter the product name or company name to view the approved label information of pesticides which are registered with the agency.

6. DEA Controlled Substances Drug Enforcement Agency website: https://www.dea.gov Controlled Substance Schedules – a list of controlled substances: www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/schedules

7. Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau https://www.ttb.gov Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives https://www.atf.gov/

8. Radiation Radiation Studies Information (CDC) www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/default.htm

9. CDC Laboratory Safety Manuals https://www.cdc.gov/labs/BMBL.html

10. Occupational Safety and Health Administration www.osha.gov Safety and Health Topics: www.osha.gov/safety-managementwww.osha.gov/SLTC/reactivechemicals/index.html www.osha.gov/SLTC/laserhazards/index.html www.osha.gov/SLTC/radiationionizing/index.html

11. U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Material Safety and Inspection Branch One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 phone: 301-415-8200; 800-368-5642 www.nrc.gov

every student must submit their research paper by monday

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Writing a Research Paper

OWL logo

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

The pages in this section provide detailed information about how to write research papers including discussing research papers as a genre, choosing topics, and finding sources.

The Research Paper

There will come a time in most students' careers when they are assigned a research paper. Such an assignment often creates a great deal of unneeded anxiety in the student, which may result in procrastination and a feeling of confusion and inadequacy. This anxiety frequently stems from the fact that many students are unfamiliar and inexperienced with this genre of writing. Never fear—inexperience and unfamiliarity are situations you can change through practice! Writing a research paper is an essential aspect of academics and should not be avoided on account of one's anxiety. In fact, the process of writing a research paper can be one of the more rewarding experiences one may encounter in academics. What is more, many students will continue to do research throughout their careers, which is one of the reasons this topic is so important.

Becoming an experienced researcher and writer in any field or discipline takes a great deal of practice. There are few individuals for whom this process comes naturally. Remember, even the most seasoned academic veterans have had to learn how to write a research paper at some point in their career. Therefore, with diligence, organization, practice, a willingness to learn (and to make mistakes!), and, perhaps most important of all, patience, students will find that they can achieve great things through their research and writing.

The pages in this section cover the following topic areas related to the process of writing a research paper:

  • Genre - This section will provide an overview for understanding the difference between an analytical and argumentative research paper.
  • Choosing a Topic - This section will guide the student through the process of choosing topics, whether the topic be one that is assigned or one that the student chooses themselves.
  • Identifying an Audience - This section will help the student understand the often times confusing topic of audience by offering some basic guidelines for the process.
  • Where Do I Begin - This section concludes the handout by offering several links to resources at Purdue, and also provides an overview of the final stages of writing a research paper.
  • Communications
  • Computer Science
  • Criminal Justice
  • Environmental Management
  • Forensic Psychology
  • Healthcare Admin
  • Human Resources
  • Project Management
  • Social work
  • Special Education
  • Sports Management
  • Supply Chain Management
  • Adult Education
  • Business Intelligence
  • Early Childhood Education
  • Educational Technology
  • Homeland Security
  • Information Systems Security
  • Information Technology
  • International Business
  • Management Information Systems
  • Nonprofit Management
  • School Counseling
  • Academic Publishing Guide
  • Building a Graduate School Resume or CV
  • Choosing Between a Thesis or Non-thesis Master's Degree
  • Expert Guide to Studying Abroad
  • FAQ: Online Master's Degrees
  • Grad School Guide Book
  • Graduate School for Students with Disabilities
  • Green Graduate Degrees
  • How to Be a Successful Grad Student
  • How to Choose the Right Graduate Program
  • How to Get a Master's Degree in an Unrelated Field
  • How to Transfer College Credits in Grad School
  • How to Write a Winning Personal Statement
  • Inside Graduate Admissions
  • Ivy League Grad Schools
  • Master's Degrees for Veterans
  • Master's Degree for Women
  • Mental Health in Grad School
  • Progressive LGBTQ Graduate Degrees
  • Should You Apply for a Graduate School Assistantship?
  • Surviving Grad School with a Family
  • Taking a Gap Year Before Grad School
  • Women in STEM Graduate Resources
  • Writing a Successful Statement of Purpose
  • Alternative Ways to Pay for School
  • The Best Part-Time Jobs During Grad School
  • Company Funded Graduate School
  • FAFSA For Grad Students
  • Financial Aid Resources
  • Graduate Student Loans
  • Paying for Your Master's Degree
  • Paying Off Student Loans
  • Paying for Your PhD
  • Fellowship Opportunities
  • LGBTQ Scholarships
  • MBA Scholarships
  • Scholarship Resources
  • Scholarships for Veterans
  • Scholarships for Women
  • Crushing the GRE Guidebook
  • GMAT Guidebook
  • Guide to the LSAT
  • MCAT Prep for Medical School
  • Study Guide: Exam Resources
  • TOEFL Prep for Non-Native English Speakers
  •       Resources       Publish or Perish: Graduate Students' Guide to Publishing

Publish or Perish: Graduate Students' Guide to Publishing

In addition to endless piles of reading, demanding expectations in the classroom, student teaching responsibilities, and the always-looming awareness that they need to research, write, and edit a high-quality dissertation before graduating, today’s Ph.D. students also commonly feel stress about another topic: publishing. As more prospective employers expect degree seekers to get their names in academic journals and conferences while still in school, many learners feel overwhelmed by the prospects of making the grade. The following guide answers some of their most pressing questions, provides guidance on the ins and outs of publishing while still in school, and offers expert advice from a professor who knows better than most what it takes to publish rather than perish.

Understanding Publishing in Graduate School

Getting published as a grad student can feel overwhelming at first, because there’s so much to learn about the process and expectations surrounding it. With a bit of research, however, students can familiarize themselves with the specific language surrounding publishing and make in-roads towards getting their first paper published.

What Does it Mean to Get Published?

Within the context of graduate school, publishing refers to getting essays, papers, and research findings published in one of the academic journals or related forms seen as a leader in the field. As jobs in academia continue to become more competitive, it isn’t enough for learners to simply do well in their coursework. The degree seeker who hopes to land an important post-doctoral fellowship or find a teaching position at a college or university must make themselves stand out in other ways.

When Should a Ph.D. Candidate Get Published?

Getting a paper published takes a lot of time and effort, and those students who wait until the final year or two of a doctoral program may fail to actually have any published materials by the time they graduate. According to the University of Nebraska-Lincoln’s Graduate Connections program , getting a paper published – especially if it’s your first – can take up to three years. In addition to the fact that most journals publish quarterly, the panel review process typically takes a significant amount of time and those submitting for the first or second time usually need to make a large number of edits and complete rewrites in order to reach a publishable standard.

How to Get Published

In order to get published, students submit their work to the journal or conference of their choosing. They frequently also provide a cover letter outlining their research interests. Most journals put out generic calls for submissions once or twice a year, while some may ask for papers addressing specific topics that have a much shorter turnaround time. Grad students may find it intimidating to go up against more seasoned academics, but another option revolves around partnering with their dissertation supervisor or another professor with whom they work closely with to co-author a paper. This not only helps ensure the validity of their findings, but alerts the academic world know that this other, more recognized faculty member believes in the research the student is doing.

Who Should Get Published?

Learners most anxious to get published are those who see their future careers in teaching and research. Because the world of academia is relatively small when divided into individual subjects, it’s important for students who want to break into these ambitious arenas to make a name for themselves early on and create a curriculum vitae that captures the attention of hiring committees.

Where Should Students Get Published?

When deciding which publications to pursue, students should consider the research aims of each and their likelihood of getting published. Newer journals tend to take more submissions as they are still working on building up their roster of contributors. While less venerated than other publications, getting printed in these can help build up name recognition and make it easier to break into the top-tier publications over time.

In terms of where work is published, the majority of students look to academic journals when sending out cover letters and examples of their work. But other options exist as well. Presenting papers at conferences is a popular avenue, as are chapters in books. The following sections takes a more in-depth look at how and where to publish.

Realities & Challenges of Getting Published

Getting published, especially while still in grad school, takes tenacity, focus, and a thick skin. Those who continue working on their craft, presenting at conferences, collaborating with others, and not taking no for an answer, however, frequently find success. Some of the challenges students may encounter include:

Lack of time

It’s no secret that doctoral students have busy schedules that seldom allow for outside – or sometimes, even related – interests to take up much of their days. Because publishing is not a degree requirement, carving out the time needed to research, write, and edit the type of paper required for publishing can feel impossible. With this in mind, student should look for ways to multitask. If presenting at a conference, think about how that paper could be transformed into a journal article.

Lack of confidence

Studies have shown that mental stress and illness frequently increase in grad school as students feel intense pressure to stand out from their peers. These feelings are often intensified when considering publishing, as learners are going up against academics and researchers who have been working in the field far longer than them. It’s important to remember that each of those renowned individuals had to start somewhere.

Lack of funding

Completing the research needed for a competitive paper doesn’t only take time – it requires money. Whether traveling to archives or printing all the necessary documentation, funding for outside research can be scarce while in school. Some programs provide competitive grants for research travel to help offset these costs.

Intense competition

As discussed earlier, competition for publishing is fierce. Academic journals and conferences only have space for so many authors and trying to get noticed can feel like a losing battle. In addition to seeking out newer publications and co-authoring with more notable figures, consider taking part in symposiums at the school you attend to get your foot in the door. While research on the average number of rejections is lacking, don’t feel discouraged if it takes a long time to be chosen for publication.

Finding the right publisher

While getting your name in print within an academic journal you greatly admire is the ultimate goal, it may take some years for it to come to fruition. One of the biggest mistakes students make is applying to ill-suited publications. Look for journals with editorial board members whose names you recognize. If a professor knows one of them, don’t be afraid to ask if they can help get your paper in front of them.

Adequately addressing feedback

Getting a paper published often requires intense editing and even completely restructuring and rewriting what you conceived in the initial abstract. If an academic journal shows interest in your essay but suggests rewrites, pay close attention to their requests and try to work with an advisor to ensure you meet all the stated requirements.

What do Graduate Students Publish?

Academic journals may receive the lion’s share of discussion in the publishing world, but graduate students can actually choose from numerous outlets and paths for getting their work to a larger audience. Students should review the options listed below and think about which format might showcase their work best.

Tips for Publishing

Despite the great amount of work required to publish, students who meet the challenges and persevere stand to position themselves favorably for future job opportunities. The following section addresses some of the most common questions about the process and alleviates general fears about how publishing (or not) reflects upon them.

How many papers should a Ph.D. student try to publish before graduating?

According to scholar-practitioner Dr. Deniece Dortch, no single answer exists. “There is no hard and fast rule as to the number of publications students should have prior to graduation,” she notes. “The reality is students in STEM disciplines and those who use quantitative methods are more likely to have publications prior to graduation because they often work in research teams and labs. This is not to say that qualitative scholars or those in other disciplines aren’t, but it’s a much more standardized practice in STEM for students to graduate with two or three publications. Personally, I had one sole-authored publication accepted prior to graduation, one first-authored piece, and one second-authored piece.”

How many journal articles is it possible to publish during a PhD?

“The answer varies and is determined by factors such as length of program, research team access, and faculty relationships,” says Dr. Dortch. “I’ve seen folks finish with as many as 10 publications, although this is extreme and doesn’t happen often.” She continues, “Imagine you are in a four-year program and you get your idea to write an article in year two. You submit that article in year three after getting approval, collecting data, analyzing it, and then writing your paper. Year three you submit that paper; it may be accepted in year four after months of revisions at the request of the editor. You finally have one published paper as you graduate.”

Are there PhD students who have no journal publications? Should they be worried about that?

“It depends on the type of employment the student is seeking upon graduation,” says Dr. Dortch, “Students applying to or wanting to work in institutions and organizations with the highest levels of research productivity who have no publications may want to consider post-doctoral positions so they have the time and space to work on increasing their publication record after graduation.” She continues, “Postdocs are a very common practice in many disciplines and are used as a way to gain additional training and expertise in research and teaching.”

Is it absolutely essential to have publications to apply for a PhD program?

In a word, no. Individuals working toward doctoral degrees have many reasons for doing so, not all of which require them to publish. Admissions panels also recognize that students focus their efforts on many different goals (e.g. jobs, internships, presenting at symposiums) throughout bachelor’s and master’s programs. As long as learners can demonstrate an ongoing commitment to scholarship, publishing is not an absolute requirement.

Does publish or perish begin before starting a PhD program?

It’s true that many students begin worrying about publishing before starting a Ph.D. program, but the reality is that they have ample time during and after completing a doctorate to make their mark on the world of scholarship. According to a recent article by Inside Higher Ed , some individuals in the academy now wonder if too much emphasis is being placed on grad students publishing. Learners unsure about this should speak to a trusted advisor or mentor to figure out when to focus on getting published.

What is the difference between a published article and a Ph.D. thesis?

While a Ph.D. thesis is required for satisfactory completion of a degree, a published article is not. A Ph.D. also takes a much longer form than a published article, averaging approximately 90,000 words. Academic journal entries, conversely, are usually between 4,000 and 7,000 words.

Should I first write my Ph.D. thesis or publish journal articles?

Though publishing at the doctoral level is increasingly seen as a requirement in the job market, it is not part of degree requirements. With this in mind, students should prioritize the research and writing of their thesis above all else. If they have the time and mental clarity needed to publish journal articles, this can be a secondary focus.

From the Expert

Dr. Deniece Dortch is a scholar-practitioner known for her commitment to diversity, social justice and activism. Dr. Dortch holds a Ph.D. in Educational Leadership & Policy Analysis from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, an Ed.M. in Higher & Postsecondary Education from Columbia University, an M.A. in Intercultural Service, Diversity Leadership & Management from the School for International Training and a B.A. in Spanish from Eastern Michigan University. Hailed a graduate school expert by NPR, she has published numerous articles on the experiences of historically underrepresented undergraduate and graduate students. She is the creator of the African American Doctoral Scholars Initiative at the University of Utah and currently a Visiting Assistant Professor of Higher Education at The George Washington University .

Publishing as a student can feel intimidating. Why is this process important for learners to go through?

Long gone are the days of getting a good job by just having a solid dissertation or an award-winning thesis. Publishing your work while in school demonstrates a commitment to answering and understanding our world’s most complex problems. Further, institutions want to know that you have the capacity to publish. Now, publishing doesn’t mean you have to be first author or that you must publish sole-authored pieces only. Collaboration is also sufficient and often encouraged. The publishing process is intimidating for folks because it involves critique and, most often, rejection.

Receiving and giving critical feedback is part of the learning process and students should not shy away from it because it will only serve them well in the end as they learn to cope with disappointment and reward. But more importantly, there is no point spending months and years conducting research if you are just going to keep your findings to yourself. What you learn is meant to be shared.

What are some common mistakes these learners make when preparing their first papers?

Common mistakes that individuals make include not adhering to the guidelines outlined in the submission process. Examples of this can include ignoring formatting requirements (e.g. APA, MLA, etc.), going over the stated word count, inadequately proofreading, and not submitting a cover letter. This is probably the most important one.

What specific advice do you have for them in terms of finding the right outlet, preparing their work, and submitting to journals?

Students should have multiple individuals read over their work before submission. Writing is a process and even after it is submitted, it will need to be revised many more times before you will read it in print. It is part of the process. To find a good outlet for your work, pay attention to where other scholars are submitting their work. If you’re subject is aligned with theirs, you have a shot. Make a list of at least three outlets that fit your article. Also look out for special calls. A special call for submissions usually goes a lot faster than the regular submission process, so if you’re a student who is about to go on the job market, submit to those first. Also, the more competitive the academic, the longer the process, so keep that in mind. If you are rejected, just re-submit to the the next journal on your list.

In addition to publishing in journals, how else might a student go about getting recognition in their field while still in school?

Apply for all fellowships, grants, and awards that are specific to you and what you do. People in the academy love an award winner and they especially love people whose work has been recognized and/or funded by outside groups. A great way to increase a student’s visibility is to publish outside academic journals and publish in other media outlets. Also attend conferences in your field. Try to get on the program as a presenter or facilitator so that people in your field will start to know who you are and your research interests.

  • Submitting Your Dissertation
  • Introduction

Harvard Griffin GSAS strives to provide students with timely, accurate, and clear information. If you need help understanding a specific policy, please contact the office that administers that policy.

  • Application for Degree
  • Credit for Completed Graduate Work
  • Ad Hoc Degree Programs
  • Acknowledging the Work of Others
  • Advanced Planning
  • Dissertation Submission Checklist
  • Formatting Your Dissertation
  • Publishing Options
  • English Language Proficiency
  • PhD Program Requirements
  • Secondary Fields
  • Year of Graduate Study (G-Year)
  • Master's Degrees
  • Grade and Examination Requirements
  • Conduct and Safety
  • Financial Aid
  • Registration

On this page:

Program Submission

Dissertation acceptance certificate, registrar’s office submission.

  • Related Contacts and Forms

Students must submit their dissertation by the date established by their program, generally six to eight weeks prior to the Registrar’s Office dissertation submission deadline and follow the program’s instructions on the number of copies to submit and format (bound or unbound). Please note : Students are responsible for notifying their department of any requested embargoes that were approved at the time of online submission.

Students must complete a dissertation acceptance certificate (DAC), which includes the title of the dissertation and signatures of at least three readers approved by the student’s program. Electronic signatures  from committee members are acceptable. If a DAC is submitted with electronic signatures, an additional DAC with handwritten signatures will not be required. A  document version of the DAC  is available if needed.

Two signatories must be members of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS); FAS emeriti (including research professors) and faculty members from other Schools at Harvard who hold appointments on Harvard Griffin GSAS degree committees are authorized to sign DACs as FAS members. Harvard Griffin GSAS strongly recommends that the chair of the dissertation committee be a member of FAS. If approved by the department, it is possible to have co-chairs of the dissertation committee as long as one is a member of FAS.  The title and the student name on the DAC must read exactly as it does on the title page of the dissertation, meaning if you use your full middle name or middle initial on one document, it must be the same on the other document. 

The DAC must additionally be uploaded as a separate "Administrative Document" when submitting the electronic dissertation to ProQuest ETD . All DACs are forwarded to the Harvard University Archives.

A copy of the signed DAC should appear before the title page of the online dissertation submission; no page number should be assigned to the DAC. The DAC will be included in all copies of the dissertation.

Students must submit their dissertation in PDF format to the FAS Registrar’s Office through ProQuest ETD by the deadline established for each degree conferral date (see the Degree Calendar  or the  Registrar’s Office website .  Please carefully review your dissertation formatting  before submitting online. Formatting errors may prevent you from receiving your degree.  During the submission process, students are asked to upload a separate copy of the signed DAC, approve two license agreements, and complete two surveys (the Harvard Griffin GSAS Employment Exit Survey and the Survey of Earned Doctorates). If you are requesting an embargo of more than two years, you will need to submit a signed approval form from the department's Director of Graduate Studies (DGS) with your dissertation submission.

The Registrar’s Office will review the dissertation for compliance and will contact the student to confirm acceptance or to request alterations.

In very rare cases, a dissertation may require redaction, which is the process of obscuring or removing sensitive information for distribution. If sensitive or potentially harmful material appears in the dissertation (e.g., commercially sensitive information, sensitive personal data, risk of harmful retribution, etc.), a student should contact the  Office for Scholarly Communication .

Contact Info

Registrar's Office   Faculty of Arts and Sciences  Harvard University  Richard A. and Susan F. Smith Campus Center Office  1350 Massachusetts Avenue, Suite 450  Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138

Tel: 617-495-1543  Fax: 617-495-0815

Office Hours: 10:30 a.m.-4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday

For additional questions, please  send us a message .

Explore Events

How to Publish a Research Paper In High School: 19 Journals and Conferences to Consider

every student must submit their research paper by monday

By Alex Yang

Graduate student at Southern Methodist University

9 minute read

research publication

So you've been working super hard writing a research paper , and you’ve finally finished. Congrats! It’s a very impressive accolade already, but there’s a way to take it a level further. As we’ve talked about before in our Polygence blog, “ Showcasing your work and sharing it with the world is the intellectual version of ‘pics or it didn’t happen.’ ” Of course, there are lot of different ways to showcase your work , from creating a Youtube video to making a podcast. But one of the most popular ways to showcase your research is to publish your research. Publishing your research can take the great work you’ve already done and add credibility to it, and will make a stronger impression than unpublished research. Further, the process of having your work reviewed by advanced degree researchers can be a valuable experience in itself. You can receive feedback from experts and learn how to improve upon the work you’ve already done.

Before we dive into the various journals and conferences to publish your work, let’s distinguish between the various publishing options that you have as a high schooler, as there are some nuances. Quick disclaimer: this article focuses on journals and conferences as ways to showcase your work. There are also competitions where you can submit your work, and we have written guides on competing in premier competitions like Regeneron STS and competing in Regeneron ISEF . 

Publishing Options for High School Students

Peer-reviewed journals.

This is rather self-explanatory, but these journals go through the peer review process, where author(s) submit their work to the journal, and the journal's editors send the work to a group of independent experts (typically grad students or other scientists with advanced degrees) in the same field or discipline. These experts are peer reviewers, who evaluate the work based on a set of predetermined criteria, including the quality of the research, the validity of the methodology, the accuracy of the data, and the originality of the findings. The peer reviewers may suggest revisions or leave comments, but ultimately the editors will decide which suggestions to give to the student. 

Once you’ve received suggestions, you have the opportunity to make revisions before submitting your final product back to the journal. The editor then decides whether or not your work is published.

Non-Peer-Reviewed Journals

These are just journals that do not undergo a review process. In general, peer-reviewed journals may be seen as more credible and prestigious. However, non-peer-reviewed journals may make it easier and faster to publish your work, which can be helpful if you are pressed for time and applying to colleges soon .

Pre Print Archives

Preprint archives or servers are online repositories where student researchers can upload and share their research papers without undergoing any review process. Preprints allow students to share their findings quickly and get feedback from the scientific community, which can help improve the research while you’re waiting to hear back from journals, which typically have longer timelines and can take up to several months to publish research. Sharing your work in a preprint archive does not prohibit you from, or interfere with submitting the same work to a journal afterwards.

Research Conferences

Prefer to present your research in a presentation or verbal format? Conferences can be a great way to “publish” your research, showcase your public speaking skills, speak directly to your audience, and network with other researchers in your field. 

Student-led Journals vs Graduate Student / Professor-led Journals 

Some student-led journals may have peer-review, but the actual people peer-reviewing your work may be high school students. Other journals will have graduate students, PhD students, or even faculty reviewing your work. As you can imagine, there are tradeoffs to either option. With an advanced degree student reviewing your work, you can likely expect better and more accurate feedback. Plus, it’s cool to have an expert look over your work! However, this may also mean that the journal is more selective, whereas student-led journals may be easier to publish in. Nonetheless, getting feedback from anyone who’s knowledgeable can be a great way to polish your research and writing.

Strategy for Submitting to Multiple Journals

Ultimately, your paper can only be published in one peer-reviewed journal. Submitting the same paper to multiple peer-reviewed journals at the same time is not allowed, and doing so may impact its publication at any peer-reviewed journal. If your work is not accepted at one journal, however, then you are free to submit that work to your next choice and so on. Therefore, it is best to submit to journals with a strategy in mind. Consider: what journal do I ideally want to be published in? What are some back-ups if I don’t get published in my ideal journal? Preprints, like arXiv and the Research Archive of Rising Scholars, are possible places to submit your work in advance of seeking peer-reviewed publication. These are places to “stake your claim” in a research area and get feedback from the community prior to submitting your paper to its final home in a peer-reviewed journal. You can submit your work to a preprint prior to submitting at a peer-reviewed journal. However, bioRxiv, a reputable preprint server, recommends on their website that a preprint only be posted on one server, so that’s something to keep in mind as well.

Citation and Paper Formats

All of the journals listed below have specific ways that they’d like you to cite your sources, varying from styles like MLA to APA, and it’s important that you double-check the journal’s requirements for citations, titling your paper, writing your abstract, etc. Most journal websites have very detailed guides for how they want you to format your paper, so follow those closely to avoid having to wait to hear back and then resubmit your paper. If you’re looking for more guidance on citations and bibliographies check out our blog post!

19 Journals and Conferences to Publish Your Research as a High Schooler

Now that we’ve distinguished the differences between certain journals and conferences, let’s jump into some of our favorite ones. We’ve divided up our selections based on prestige and reliability, and we’ve made these selections using our experience with helping Polygence students showcase their research .

Most Prestigious Journals

Concord review.

Cost: $70 to Submit and $200 Publication Cost (if accepted)

Deadline: Fixed Deadlines in Feb 1 (Summer Issue), May 1 (Fall), August 1 (Winter), and November 1 (Spring)

Subject area: History / Social Sciences

Type of research: All types of academic articles

The Concord Review is a quarterly journal that publishes exceptional essays written by high school students on historical topics. The journal has been around since 1987 and has a great reputation, with many student winners going to great universities. Further, if your paper is published, your essays will be sent to subscribers and teachers all around the world, which is an incredible achievement.

Papers submitted tend to be around 8,000 words, so there is definitely a lot of writing involved, and the Concord Review themselves say that they are very selective, publishing only about 5% of the essays they receive.

We’ve posted our complete guide on publishing in the Concord Review here.

Journal of Emerging Investigators (JEI)

Deadline: Rolling

Subject area: STEM 

Type of research: Original hypothesis-driven scientific research

JEI is an open-access publication that features scientific research papers written by middle and high school students in the fields of biological and physical sciences. The journal includes a comprehensive peer-review process, where graduate students and other professional scientists with advanced degrees will review the manuscripts and provide suggestions to improve both the project and manuscript itself. You can expect to receive feedback in 6-8 weeks.

This should be the go-to option for students that are doing hypothesis-driven, original research or research that involves original analyses of existing data (meta-analysis, analyzing publicly available datasets, etc.). This is not an appropriate fit for students writing literature reviews. Finally, a mentor or parent must submit on behalf of the student.

We’ve had many Polygence students successfully submit to JEI. Check out Hana’s research on invasive species and their effects in drought times.

Very Prestigious Journals

Stem fellowship journal (sfj).

Cost: $400 publication fee

Subject area: All Scientific Disciplines

Type of research: Conference Proceedings, Review Articles, Viewpoint Articles, Original Research

SFJ is a peer-reviewed journal published by Canadian Science Publishing that serves as a platform for scholarly research conducted by high school and university students in the STEM fields. Peer review is conducted by undergraduate, graduate student, and professional reviewers.

Depending on the kind of research article you choose to submit, SFJ provides very specific guidelines on what to include and word limits.

Journal of Student Research (JSR)

Cost: $50 to Submit and $200 Publication Cost (if accepted)

Deadline: Fixed Deadlines in February, May, August, and November

Subject area: All Academic Disciplines

Type of research: Research and review articles, as well as other article types (not peer-reviewed)

The Journal of Student Research (JSR) is an academic journal based in Houston, Texas. It is reviewed by faculty members and accepts research and review articles, as well as other research projects (although those will not undergo the peer-review process).

From our experience, JSR sometimes experiences delays in acceptances and communication during the fall when many students are submitting, so try to submit early if possible and be mindful of deadlines.

Other Great Journal Options

National high school journal of science (nhsjs).

Cost: $250 for publication 

Deadline: Rolling 

Subject area: All science disciplines 

Type of research: Original research, literature review

NHSJS is a journal peer reviewed by high schoolers from around the world, with an advisory board of adult academics. Topics are STEM related, and submission types can vary from original research papers to shorter articles.

Curieux Academic Journal

Cost: $185-215

Subject area: Engineering, Humanities, and Natural Science, Mathematics, and Social Science

Type of research: Including but not limited to research papers, review articles, and humanity/social science pieces.

Curieux Academic Journal is a non-profit run by students and was founded in 2017 to publish outstanding research by high school and middle school students. Curieux publishes one issue per month (twelve per year), so there are many opportunities to get your research published. 

The Young Scientists Journal 

Deadline: December

Subject area: Sciences

Type of research: Original research, literature review, blog post

The Young Scientists Journal , while a popular option for students previously, has paused submissions to process a backlog. The journal is an international peer-reviewed journal run by students, and creates print issues twice a year. 

The journal has also been around for a decade and has a clear track record of producing alumni who go on to work in STEM.

Here’s an example of research submitted by Polygence student Ryan to the journal.

Journal of Research High School (JRHS)

Subject area: Any academic subject including the sciences and humanities

Type of research: Original research and significant literature reviews.

JRHS is an online research journal edited by volunteer professional scientists, researchers, teachers, and professors. JRHS accepts original research and significant literature reviews in Engineering, Humanities, Natural Science, Math, and Social Sciences.

From our experience working with our students to help publish their research, this journal is currently operating with a 15-20 week turnaround time for review. This is a bit on the longer side, so be mindful of this turnaround time if you’re looking to get your work published soon.

Youth Medical Journal

Deadline: March (currently closed)

Subject area: Medical or scientific topics

Type of research: Original research, review article, blog post, magazine article

The Youth Medical Journal is an international, student-run team of 40 students looking to share medical research.

We’ve found that this journal is a good entry point for students new to research papers, but when submissions are busy, in the past they have paused submissions. 

Journal of High School Science (JHSS)

Subject area: All topics

Type of research: Original research, literature review, technical notes, opinion pieces

This peer-reviewed STEAM journal publishes quarterly, with advanced degree doctors who sit on the journal’s editorial board. In addition to typical STEM subjects, the journal also accepts manuscripts related to music and theater, which is explicitly stated on their website.

Due to the current large volume of submissions, the review process takes a minimum of 4 weeks from the time of submission.

Whitman Journal of Psychology

Subject area: Psychology

Type of research: Original research, podcasts

The WWJOP is a publication run entirely by students, where research and literature reviews in the field of psychology are recognized. The journal is run out of a high school with a teacher supervisor and student staff.

The WWJOP uniquely also accepts podcast submissions, so if that’s your preferred format for showcasing your work, then this could be the journal for you!

Cost: $180 submission fee

Subject area: Humanities

Type of research: Essay submission

The Schola is a peer-reviewed quarterly journal that showcases essays on various humanities and social sciences topics authored by high school students worldwide. They feature a diverse range of subjects such as philosophy, history, art history, English, economics, public policy, and sociology.

Editors at Schola are academics who teach and do research in the humanities and social sciences

Critical Debates in Humanities, Science and Global Justice

Cost: $10 author fee

Subject area: Ethics and frontiers of science, Biology and ecosystems, Technology and Innovation, Medical research and disease, Peace and civil society, Global citizenship, identity and democracy, Structural violence and society, Psychology, Education, AI, Sociology, Computer Science, Neuroscience, Cultural politics, Politics and Justice, Computer science and math as related to policy, Public policy, Human rights, Language, Identity and Culture, Art and activism

Critical Debates is an international academic journal for critical discourse in humanities, science and contemporary global issues for emerging young scholars

International Youth Neuroscience Association Journal

Subject area: Neuroscience

Type of research: Research papers

Although this student peer-reviewed journal is not currently accepting submissions, we’ve had students recently publish here. 

Here’s an example of Nevenka’s research that was published in the November 2022 issue of the journal.

Preprint Archives to Share Your Work In

Subject area: STEM, Quantitative Finance, Economics

arXiv is an open access archive supported by Cornell University, where more than 2 million scholarly articles in a wide variety of topics have been compiled. arXiv articles are not peer-reviewed, so you will not receive any feedback on your work from experts. However, your article does go through a moderation process where your work is classified into a topic area and checked for scholarly value. This process is rather quick however and according to arXiv you can expect your article to be available on the website in about 6 hours. 

Although there’s no peer review process, that means the submission standards are not as rigorous and you can get your article posted very quickly, so submitting to arXiv or other preprint archives can be something you do before trying to get published in a journal.

One slight inconvenience of submitting to arXiv is that you must be endorsed by a current arXiv author, which can typically be a mentor or teacher or professor that you have. Here’s an example of a Polygence student submitting their work to arXiv, with Albert’s research on Hamiltonian Cycles.

Subject area: Biology

Type of research: Original research

bioRxiv is a preprint server for biology research, where again the research is not peer-reviewed but undergoes a check to make sure that the material is relevant and appropriate.

bioRxiv has a bit of a longer posting time, taking around 48 hours, but that’s still very quick. bioRxiv also allows for you to submit revised versions of your research if you decide to make changes.

Research Archive of Rising Scholars (RARS)

Subject area: STEM and Humanities

Type of research: Original research, review articles, poems, short stories, scripts

Research Archive of Rising Scholars is Polygence’s own preprint server! We were inspired by arXiv so we created a repository for articles and other creative submissions in STEM and the Humanities.

We launched RARS in 2022 and we’re excited to offer a space for budding scholars as they look to publish their work in journals. Compared to other preprint archives, RARS also accepts a wider range of submission types, including poems, short stories, and scripts.

Conferences to Participate In

Symposium of rising scholars.

Deadline: Twice a year - February and July

Polygence’s very own Symposium of Rising Scholars is a bi-annual academic conference where students present and share their research with their peers and experts. The Symposium also includes a College Admissions Panel and Keynote Speech. In our 8th edition of the Symposium this past March, we had 60 students presenting live, approximately 70 students presenting asynchronously, and over 100 audience members. The keynote speaker was Chang-rae Lee, award-winning novelist and professor at Stanford University.

We’re looking to have our 9th Symposium in Fall of 2023, and you can express your interest now. If you’re interested to see what our Polygence scholars have presented in the past for the Symposium, you can check out their scholar pages here.

Junior Science and Humanities Symposium (JSHS)

Deadline: Typically in November, so for 2024’s competition look to submit in Fall 2023

Subject area: STEM topics

JSHS is a Department of Defense sponsored program and competition that consists of first submitting a written report of your research. If your submission is selected, you’ll be able to participate in the regional symposium, where you can present in oral format or poster format. A select group from the regional symposium will then qualify for the national symposium.

One of the great things about JSHS compared to the journals mentioned above is that you’re allowed to work in teams and you don’t have to be a solo author. This can make the experience more fun for you and your teammates, and allow you to combine your strengths for your submission.

Related Content:

Top 8 Business Journals to Publish Your Research

Why Teens Should Attend the National Student Leadership Conference (NSLC)

How to Brainstorm Your Way to Perfect Research Topic Ideas

Top 20 Most Competitive Summer Programs for High School Students

Want to start a project of your own?

Click below to get matched with one of our expert mentors who can help take your project off the ground!

Student working on a rocket ship

U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

  • Publications
  • Account settings
  • Advanced Search
  • Journal List
  • HHS Author Manuscripts

Logo of nihpa

How to Conduct Responsible Research: A Guide for Graduate Students

Alison l. antes.

1 Department of Medicine, Division of General Medical Sciences, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, 314-362-6006

Leonard B. Maggi, Jr.

2 Department of Medicine, Division of Molecular Oncology, Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, 314-362-4102

Researchers must conduct research responsibly for it to have an impact and to safeguard trust in science. Essential responsibilities of researchers include using rigorous, reproducible research methods, reporting findings in a trustworthy manner, and giving the researchers who contributed appropriate authorship credit. This “how-to” guide covers strategies and practices for doing reproducible research and being a responsible author. The article also covers how to utilize decision-making strategies when uncertain about the best way to proceed in a challenging situation. The advice focuses especially on graduate students but is appropriate for undergraduates and experienced researchers. The article begins with an overview of the responsible conduct of research, research misconduct, and ethical behavior in the scientific workplace. The takeaway message is that responsible conduct of research requires a thoughtful approach to doing research to ensure trustworthy results and conclusions and that researchers receive fair credit.

INTRODUCTION

Doing research is stimulating and fulfilling work. Scientists make discoveries to build knowledge and solve problems, and they work with other dedicated researchers. Research is a highly complex activity, so it takes years for beginning researchers to learn everything they need to know to do science well. Part of this large body of knowledge is learning how to do research responsibly. Our purpose in this article is to provide graduate students a guide for how to perform responsible research. Our advice is also relevant to undergraduate researchers and for principal investigators (PIs), postdocs, or other researchers who mentor beginning researchers and wish to share our advice.

We begin by introducing some fundamentals about the responsible conduct of research (RCR), research misconduct, and ethical behavior. We focus on how to do reproducible science and be a responsible author. We provide practical advice for these topics and present scenarios to practice thinking through challenges in research. Our article concludes with decision-making strategies for addressing complex problems.

What is the responsible conduct of research?

To be committed to RCR means upholding the highest standards of honesty, accuracy, efficiency, and objectivity ( Steneck, 2007 ). Each day, RCR requires engaging in research in a conscientious, intentional fashion that yields the best science possible ( “Research Integrity is Much More Than Misconduct,” 2019 ). We adopt a practical, “how-to” approach, discussing the behaviors and habits that yield responsible research. However, some background knowledge about RCR is helpful to frame our discussion.

The scientific community uses many terms to refer to ethical and responsible behavior in research: responsible conduct of research, research integrity, scientific integrity, and research ethics ( National Academies of Science, 2009 ; National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine, 2017 ; Steneck, 2007 ). A helpful way to think about these concepts is “doing good science in a good manner” ( DuBois & Antes, 2018 ). This means that the way researchers do their work, from experimental procedures to data analysis and interpretation, research reporting, and so on, leads to trustworthy research findings and conclusions. It also includes respectful interactions among researchers both within research teams (e.g., between peers, mentors and trainees, and collaborators) and with researchers external to the team (e.g., peer reviewers). We expand on trainee-mentor relationships and interpersonal dynamics with labmates in a companion article ( Antes & Maggi, 2021 ). When research involves human or animal research subjects, RCR includes protecting the well-being of research subjects.

We do not cover all potential RCR topics but focus on what we consider fundamentals for graduate students. Common topics covered in texts and courses on RCR include the following: authorship and publication; collaboration; conflicts of interest; data management, sharing, and ownership; intellectual property; mentor and trainee responsibilities; peer review; protecting human subjects; protecting animal subjects; research misconduct; the role of researchers in society; and laboratory safety. A number of topics prominently discussed among the scientific community in recent years are also relevant to RCR. These include the reproducibility of research ( Baker, 2016 ; Barba, 2016 ; Winchester, 2018 ), diversity and inclusion in science ( Asplund & Welle, 2018 ; Hofstra et al., 2020 ; Meyers, Brown, Moneta-Koehler, & Chalkley, 2018 ; National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine, 2018a ; Roper, 2019 ), harassment and bullying ( Else, 2018 ; National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine, 2018b ; “ No Place for Bullies in Science,” 2018 ), healthy research work environments ( Norris, Dirnagl, Zigmond, Thompson-Peer, & Chow, 2018 ; “ Research Institutions Must Put the Health of Labs First,” 2018 ), and the mental health of graduate students ( Evans, Bira, Gastelum, Weiss, & Vanderford, 2018 ).

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) ( National Institutes of Health, 2009 ) and the National Science Foundation ( National Science Foundation, 2017 ) have formal policies indicating research trainees must receive education in RCR. Researchers are accountable to these funding agencies and the public which supports research through billions in tax dollars annually. The public stands to benefit from, or be harmed by, research. For example, the public may be harmed if medical treatments or social policies are based on untrustworthy research findings. Funding for research, participation in research, and utilization of the fruits of research all rely on public trust ( Resnik, 2011 ). Trustworthy findings are also essential for good stewardship of scarce resources ( Emanuel, Wendler, & Grady, 2000 ). Researchers are further accountable to their peers, colleagues, and scientists more broadly. Trust in the work of other researchers is essential for science to advance. Finally, researchers are accountable for complying with the rules and policies of their universities or research institutions, such as rules about laboratory safety, bullying and harassment, and the treatment of animal research subjects.

What is research misconduct?

When researchers intentionally misrepresent or manipulate their results, these cases of scientific fraud often make the news headlines ( Chappell, 2019 ; O’Connor, 2018 ; Park, 2012 ), and they can seriously undermine public trust in research. These cases also harm trust within the scientific community.

The U.S. defines research misconduct as fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism (FFP) ( Department of Health and Human Services, 2005 ). FFP violate the fundamental ethical principle of honesty. Fabrication is making up data, and falsification is manipulating or changing data or results so they are no longer truthful. Plagiarism is a form of dishonesty because it includes using someone’s words or ideas and portraying them as your own. When brought to light, misconduct involves lengthy investigations and serious consequences, such as ineligibility to receive federal research funding, loss of employment, paper retractions, and, for students, withdrawal of graduate degrees.

One aspect of responsible behavior includes addressing misconduct if you observe it. We suggest a guide titled “Responding to Research Wrongdoing: A User-Friendly Guide” that provides advice for thinking about your options if you think you have observed misconduct ( Keith-Spiegel, Sieber, & Koocher, 2010 ). Your university will have written policies and procedures for investigating allegations of misconduct. Making an allegation is very serious. As Keith-Spiegel et al.’s guide indicates, it is important to know the evidence that supports your claim, and what to expect in the process. We encourage, if possible, talking to the persons involved first. For example, one of us knew of a graduate student who reported to a journal editor their suspicion of falsified data in a manuscript. It turned out that the student was incorrect. Going above the PI directly to the editor ultimately led to the PI leaving the university, and the student had a difficult time finding a new lab to complete their degree. If the student had first spoken to the PI and lab members, they could have learned that their assumptions about the data in the paper were wrong. In turn, they could have avoided accusing the PI of a serious form of scientific misconduct—making up data—and harming everyone’s scientific career.

What shapes ethical behavior in the scientific workplace?

Responsible conduct of research and research misconduct are two sides of a continuum of behavior—RCR upholds the ideals of research and research misconduct violates them. Problematic practices that fall in the middle but are not defined formally as research misconduct have been labeled as detrimental research practices ( National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine, 2017 ). Researchers conducting misleading statistical analyses or PIs providing inadequate supervision are examples of the latter. Research suggests that characteristics of individual researchers and research environments explain (un)ethical behavior in the scientific workplace ( Antes et al., 2007 ; Antes, English, Baldwin, & DuBois, 2018 ; Davis, Riske-Morris, & Diaz, 2007 ; DuBois et al., 2013 ).

These two influences on ethical behavior are helpful to keep in mind when thinking about your behavior. When people think about their ethical behavior, they think about their personal values and integrity and tend to overlook the influence of their environment. While “being a good person” and having the right intentions are essential to ethical behavior, the environment also has an influence. In addition, knowledge of standards for ethical research is important for ethical behavior, and graduate students new to research do not yet know everything they need to. They also have not fully refined their ethical decision-making skills for solving professional problems. We discuss strategies for ethical decision-making in the final section of this article ( McIntosh, Antes, & DuBois, 2020 ).

The research environment influences ethical behavior in a number of ways. For example, if a research group explicitly discusses high standards for research, people will be more likely to prioritize these ideals in their behavior ( Plemmons et al., 2020 ). A mentor who sets a good example is another important factor ( Anderson et al., 2007 ). Research labs must also provide individuals with adequate training, supervision and feedback, opportunities to discuss data, and the psychological safety to feel comfortable communicating about problems, including mistakes ( Antes, Kuykendall, & DuBois, 2019a , 2019b ). On the other hand, unfair research environments, inadequate supervision, poor communication, and severe stress and anxiety may undermine ethical decision-making and behavior; particularly when many of these factors exist together. Thus, (un)ethical behavior is a complex interplay of individual factors (e.g., personality, stress, decision-making skills) and the environment.

For graduate students, it is important to attend to what you are learning and how the environment around you might influence your behavior. You do not know what you do not know, and you necessarily rely on others to teach you responsible practices. So, it is important to be aware. Ultimately, you are accountable for your behavior. You cannot just say “I didn’t know.” Rather, just like you are curious about your scientific questions, maintain a curiosity about responsible behavior as a researcher. If you feel uncomfortable with something, pay attention to that feeling, speak to someone you trust, and seek out information about how to handle the situation. In what follows, we cover key tips for responsible behavior in the areas of reproducibility and authorship that we hope will help you as you begin.

HOW TO DO REPRODUCIBLE SCIENCE

The foremost responsibility of scientists is to ensure they conduct research in such a manner that the findings are trustworthy. Reproducibility is the ability to duplicate results ( Goodman, Fanelli, & Ioannidis, 2016 ). The scientific community has called for greater openness, transparency, and rigor as key remedies for lack of reproducibility ( Munafò et al., 2017 ). As a graduate student, essential to fostering reproducibility is the rigor of your approach to doing experiments and handling data. We discuss how to utilize research protocols, document experiments in a lab notebook, and handle data responsibly.

Utilize research protocols

1. learn and utilize the lab’s protocols.

Research protocols describe the step-by-step procedures for doing an experiment. They are critical for the quality and reproducibility of experiments. Lab members must learn and follow the lab’s protocols with the understanding that they may need to make adjustments based on the requirements of a specific experiment.

Also, it is important to distinguish between the experiment you are performing and analyzing the data from that experiment. For example, the experiment you want to perform might be to determine if loss of a gene blocks cell growth. Several protocols, each with pros and cons, will allow you to examine “cell growth.” Using the wrong experimental protocol can produce data that leads to muddled conclusions. In this example, the gene does block cell growth, but the experiment used to produce the data that you analyze to understand cell growth is wrong, thus giving a result that is a false negative.

When first joining a lab, it is essential to commit to learning the protocols necessary for your assigned research project. Researchers must ensure they are proficient in executing a protocol and can perform their experiments reliably. If you do not feel confident with a protocol, you should do practice runs if possible. Repetition is the best way to work through difficulties with protocols. Often it takes several attempts to work through the steps of a protocol before you will be comfortable performing it. Asking to watch another lab member perform the protocol is also helpful. Be sure to watch closely how steps are performed, as often there are minor steps taken that are not written down. Also, experienced lab members may do things as second nature and not think to explicitly mention them when working through the protocol. Ask questions of other lab members so that you can improve your knowledge and gain confidence with a protocol. It is better to ask a question than potentially ruin a valuable or hard-to-get sample.

Be cautious of differences in the standing protocols in the lab and how you actually perform the experiment. Even the most minor deviations can seriously impact the results and reproducibility of an experiment. As mentioned above, often there are minor things that are done that might not be listed in the protocol. Paying attention and asking questions are the best ways to learn, in addition to adding notes to the protocol if you find minor details are missing.

2. Develop your own protocols

Often you will find that a project requires a protocol that has not been performed in the lab. If performing a new experiment in the lab and no protocol exists, find a protocol and try it. Protocols can be obtained from many different sources. A great source is other labs on campus, as you can speak directly to the person who performs the experiment. There are many journal sources as well, such as Current Protocols, Nature Protocols, Nature Methods, and Cell STAR Methods . These methods journals provide the most detailed protocols for experiments often with troubleshooting tips. Scientific papers are the most common source of protocols. However, keep in mind that due to the common brevity of methods sections, they often omit crucial details or reference other papers that may not contain a complete description of the protocol.

3. Handle mistakes or problems promptly

At some point, everyone encounters problems with a protocol, or realizes they made a mistake. You should be prepared to handle this situation by being able to detail exactly how you performed the experiment. Did you skip a step? Shorten or lengthen a time point? Did you have to make a new buffer or borrow a labmate’s buffer? There are too many ways an experiment can go wrong to list here but being able to recount all the steps you performed in detail will help you work through the problem. Keep in mind that often the best way to understand how to perform an experiment is learning from when something goes wrong. This situation requires you to critically think through what was done and understand the steps taken. When everything works perfectly, it is easy to pay less attention to the details, which can lead to problems down the line.

It is up to you to be attentive and meticulous in the lab. Paying attention to the details may feel like a pain at first, or even seem overwhelming. Practice and repetition will help this focus on details become a natural part of your lab work. Ultimately, this skill will be essential to being a responsible scientist.

Document experiments in a lab notebook

1. recognize the importance of a lab notebook.

Maintaining detailed documentation in a lab notebook allows researchers to keep track of their experiments and generation of data. This detailed documentation helps you communicate about your research with others in the lab, and serves as a basis for preparing publications. It also provides a lasting record for the lab that exists beyond your time in the lab. After graduate students leave the lab, sometimes it is necessary to go back to the results of older experiments. A complete and detailed notebook is essential, or all of the time, effort, and resources are lost.

2. Learn the note-keeping practices in your lab

When you enter a new lab, it is important to understand how the lab keeps notebooks and the expectations for documentation. Being conscientious about documentation will make you a better scientist. In some labs, the PI might routinely examine your notebook, while in other labs you may be expected to maintain a notebook, but it may not be regularly viewed by others. It is tempting to become relaxed in documentation if you think your notebook may not be reviewed. Avoid this temptation; documentation of your ideas and process will improve your ability to think critically about research. Further, even if the PI or lab members do not physically view your notebook, you will need to communicate with them about your experiments. This documentation is necessary to communicate effectively about your work.

3. Organize your lab notebook

Different labs use different formats; some use electronic notebooks while others handwritten notebooks. The contents of a good notebook include the purpose of the experiment, the details of the experimental procedure, the data, and thoughts about the results. To effectively document your experiment, there are 5 critical questions that the information you record should be able to answer.

  • Why I am doing this experiment? (purpose)
  • What did I do to perform the experiment? (protocol)
  • What are the results of what I did? (data, graphs)
  • What do I think about the results?
  • What do I think are the next steps?

We also recommend a table of contents. It will make the information more useful to you and the lab in the future. The table of contents should list the title of the experiment, the date(s) it was performed, and the page numbers on which it is recorded. Also, make sure that you write clearly and provide a legend or explanation of any shorthand or non-standard abbreviation you use. Often labs will have a combination of written lab notebooks and electronic data. It is important to reference where electronic data are located that go with each experiment. The idea is to make it as easy as possible to understand what you did and where to find all the data (electronic and hard copy) that accompanies your experiment.

Keeping a lab notebook becomes easier with practice. It can be thought of almost like journaling about your experiment. Sometimes people think of it as just a place to paste their protocol and a graph or data. We strongly encourage you to include your thoughts about why you made the decisions you made when conducting the experiment and to document your thoughts about next steps.

4. Commit to doing it the right way

A common reason to become lax in documentation is feeling rushed for time. Although documentation takes time, it saves time in the long-run and fosters good science. Without good notes, you will waste time trying to recall precisely what you did, reproduce your findings, and remember what you thought would be important next steps. The lab notebook helps you think about your research critically and keep your thoughts together. It can also save you time later when writing up results for publication. Further, well-documented data will help you draft a cogent and rigorous dissertation.

Handle data responsibly

1. keep all data.

Data are the product of research. Data include raw data, processed data, analyzed data, figures, and tables. Many data today are electronic, but not all. Generating data requires a lot of time and resources and researchers must treat data with care. The first essential tip is to keep all data. Do not discard data just because the experiment did not turn out as expected. A lot of experiments do not turn out to yield publishable data, but the results are still important for informing next steps.

Always keep the original, raw data. That is, as you process and analyze data, always maintain an unprocessed version of the original data.

Universities and funding agencies have data retention policies. These policies specify the number of years beyond a grant that data must be kept. Some policies also indicate researchers need to retain original data that served as the basis for a publication for a certain number of years. Therefore, your data will be important well beyond your time in graduate school. Most labs require you to keep samples for reanalysis until a paper is published, then the analyzed data are enough. If you leave a lab before a paper is accepted for publication, you are responsible for ensuring your data and original samples are well documented for others to find and use.

2. Document all data

In addition to keeping all data, data must be well-organized and documented. This means that no matter the way you keep your data (e.g., electronic or in written lab notebooks), there is a clear guide—in your lab notebook, a binder, or on a lab hard drive—to finding the data for a particular experiment. For example, it must be clear which data produced a particular graph. Version control of data is also critical. Your documentation should include “metadata” (data about your data) that tracks versions of the data. For example, as you edit data for a table, you should save separate versions of the tables, name the files sequentially, and note the changes that were made to each version.

3. Backup your data

You should backup electronic data regularly. Ideally, your lab has a shared server or cloud storage to backup data. If you are supposed to put your data there, make sure you do it! When you leave the lab, it must be possible to find your data.

4. Perform data analysis honestly and competently

Inappropriate use of statistics is a major concern in the scientific community, as the results and conclusions will be misleading if done incorrectly ( DeMets, 1999 ). Some practices are clearly an abuse of statistics, while other inappropriate practices stem from lack of knowledge. For example, a practice called “p-hacking” describes when researchers “collect or select data or statistical analyses until nonsignificant results become significant” ( Head, Holman, Lanfear, Kahn, & Jennions, 2015 ). In addition to avoiding such misbehavior, it is essential to be proficient with statistics to ensure you do statistical procedures appropriately. Learning statistical procedures and analyzing data takes many years of practice, and your statistics courses may only cover the basics. You will need to know when to consult others for help. In addition to consulting members in your lab or your PI, your university may have statistical experts who can provide consultations.

5. Master pressure to obtain favored results

When you conduct an experiment, the results are the results. As a beginning researcher, it is important to be prepared to manage the frustration of experiments not turning out as expected. It is also important to manage the real or perceived pressure to produce favored results. Investigators can become wedded to a hypothesis, and they can have a difficult time accepting the results. Sometimes you may feel this pressure coming from yourself; for example, if you want to please your PI, or if you want to get results for a certain publication. It is important to always follow the data no matter where it leads.

If you do feel pressure, this situation can be uncomfortable and stressful. If you have been meticulous and followed the above recommendations, this can be one great safeguard. You will be better able to confidently communicate your results to the PI because of your detailed documentation, and you will be more confident in your procedures if the possibility of error is suggested. Typically, with enough evidence that the unexpected results are real, the PI will concede. We recommend seeking the support of friends or colleagues to vent and cope with stress. In the rare case that the PI does not relent, you could turn to an advisor outside the lab if you need advice about how to proceed. They can help you look at the data objectively and also help you think about the interpersonal aspects of navigating this situation.

6. Communicate about your data in the lab

A critical element of reproducible research is communication in the lab. Ideally, there are weekly or bi-weekly meetings to discuss data. You need to develop your communication skills for writing and speaking about data. Often you and your labmates will discuss experimental issues and results informally during the course of daily work. This is an excellent way to hone critical thinking and communication skills about data.

Scenario 1 – The Protocol is Not Working

At the beginning of a rotation during their first year, a graduate student is handed a lab notebook and a pen and is told to keep track of their work. There does not appear to be a specific format to follow. There are standard lab protocols that everyone follows, but minor tweaks to the protocols do not seem to be tracked from experiment to experiment in the standard lab protocol nor in other lab notebooks. After two weeks of trying to follow one of the standard lab protocols, the student still cannot get the experiment to work. The student has included the appropriate positive and negative controls which are failing, making the experiment uninterpretable. After asking others in the lab for help, the graduate student learns that no one currently in the lab has performed this particular experiment. The former lab member who had performed the experiment only lists the standard protocol in their lab notebook.

How should the graduate student start to solve the problem?

Speaking to the PI would be the next logical step. As a first-year student in a lab rotation, the PI should expect this type of situation and provide additional troubleshooting guidance. It is possible that the PI may want to see how the new graduate student thinks critically and handles adversity in the lab. Rather than giving an answer, the PI might ask the student to work through the problem. The PI should give guidance, but it may not be an immediate fix for the problem. If the PI’s suggestions fail to correct the problem, asking a labmate or the PI for the contact information of the former lab member who most recently performed the experiment would be a reasonable next step. The graduate student’s conversations with the PI and labmates in this situation will help them learn a lot about how the people in the lab interact.

Most of the answers for these types of problems will require you as a graduate student to take the initiative to answer. They will require your effort and ingenuity to talk to other lab members, other labs at the university, and even scour the literature for alternatives. While labs have standard protocols, there are multiple ways to do many experiments, and working out an alternative will teach you more than when everything works. Having to troubleshoot problems will result in better standard protocols in the lab and better science.

HOW TO BE A RESPONSIBLE AUTHOR

Researchers communicate their findings via peer-reviewed publications, and publications are important for advancing in a research career. Many graduate students will first author or co-author publications in graduate school. For good advice on how to write a research manuscript, consult the Current Protocols article “How to write a research manuscript” ( Frank, 2018 ). We focus on the issues of assigning authors and reporting your findings responsibly. First, we describe some important basics: journal impact factors, predatory journals, and peer review.

What are journal impact factors?

It is helpful to understand journal impact factors. There is criticism about an overemphasis on impact factors for evaluating the quality or importance of researchers’ work ( DePellegrin & Johnston, 2015 ), but they remain common for this purpose. Journal impact factors reflect the average number of times articles in a journal were cited in the last two years. Higher impact factors place journals at a higher rank. Approximately 2% of journals have an impact factor of 10 or higher. For example, Cell, Science, and Nature have impact factors of approximately 39, 42, and 43, respectively. Journals can be great journals but have lower impact factors; often this is because they focus on a smaller specialty field. For example, Journal of Immunology and Oncogene are respected journals, but their impact factors are about 4 and 7, respectively.

Research trainees often want to publish in journals with the highest possible impact factor because they expect this to be viewed favorably when applying to future positions. We encourage you to bear in mind that many different journals publish excellent science and focus on publishing where your work will reach the desired audience. Also, keep in mind that while a high impact factor can direct you to respectable, high-impact science, it does not guarantee that the science in the paper is good or even correct. You must critically evaluate all papers you read no matter the impact factor.

What are predatory journals?

Predatory journals have flourished over the past few years as publishing science has moved online. An international panel defined predatory journals as follows ( Grudniewicz et al., 2019 ):

Predatory journals and publishers are entities that prioritize self-interest at the expense of scholarship and are characterized by false or misleading information, deviation from best editorial and publication practices, a lack of transparency, and/or the use of aggressive and indiscriminate solicitation practices. (p. 211)

Often young researchers receive emails soliciting them to submit their work to a journal. There are typically small fees (around $99 US) requested but these fees will be much lower than open access fees of reputable journals (often around $2000 US). A warning sign of a predatory journal is outlandish promises, such as 24-hour peer review or immediate publication. You can find a list of predatory journals created by a postdoc in Europe at BeallsList.net ( “Beall’s List of Potential Predatory Journals and Publishers,” 2020 ).

What is peer review?

Peer reviewers are other scientists who have the expertise to evaluate a manuscript. Typically 2 or 3 reviewers evaluate a manuscript. First, an editor performs an initial screen of the manuscript to ensure its appropriateness for the journal and that it meets basic quality standards. At this stage, an editor can decide to reject the manuscript and not send it to review. Not sending a paper for peer review is common in the highest impact journals that receive more submissions per year than can be reviewed and published. For average-impact journals and specialty journals, typically your paper will be sent for peer review.

In general, peer review focuses on three aspects of a manuscript: research design and methods, validity of the data and conclusions, and significance. Peer reviewers assess the merit and rigor of the research design and methodology, and they evaluate the overall validity of the results, interpretations, and conclusions. Essentially, reviewers want to ensure that the data support the claims. Additionally, reviewers evaluate the overall significance, or contribution, of the findings, which involves the novelty of the research and the likelihood that the findings will advance the field. Significance standards vary between journals. Some journals are open to publishing findings that are incremental advancements in a field, while others want to publish only what they deem as major advancements. This feature can distinguish the highest impact journals which seek the most significant advancements and other journals that tend to consider a broader range of work as long as it is scientifically sound. It is important to keep in mind that determining at the stage of review and publication whether a paper is “high impact” is quite subjective. In reality, this can only really be determined in retrospect.

The key ethical issues in peer review are fairness, objectivity, and confidentiality ( Shamoo & Resnik, 2015 ). Peer reviewers are to evaluate the manuscript on its merits and not based on biases related to the authors or the science itself. If reviewers have a conflict of interest, this should be disclosed to the editor. Confidentiality of peer review means that the reviewers should keep private the information; they should not share the information with others or use it to their benefit. Reviewers can ultimately recommend that the manuscript is rejected, revised, and resubmitted (major or minor revisions), or accepted. The editor evaluates the reviewers’ feedback and makes a judgment about rejecting, accepting, or requesting a revision. Sometimes PIs will ask experienced graduate students to assist with peer reviewing a manuscript. This is a good learning opportunity. The PI should disclose to the editor that they included a trainee in preparing the review.

Assign authorship fairly

Authorship gives credit to the people who contributed to the research. This includes thinking of the ideas, designing and performing experiments, interpreting the results, and writing the paper. Two key questions regarding authorship include: 1 - Who will be an author? 2 - What will be the order in which authors are listed? These seem simple on the surface but can get quite complex.

1. Know authorship guidelines

Authorship guidelines published by journals, professional societies, and universities communicate key principles of authorship and standards for earning authorship. The core ethical principle of assigning authorship is fairness in who receives credit for the work. The people who contributed to the work should get credit for it. This seems simply enough, but determining authorship can (and often does) create conflict.

Many universities have authorship guidelines, and you should know the policies at your university. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) provides four criteria for determining who should be an author ( International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, 2020 ). These criteria indicate that an author should do all of the following: 1) make “substantial contributions” to the development of the idea or research design, or to acquiring, analyzing, or interpreting the data, 2) write the manuscript or revise it a substantive way, 3) give approval of the final manuscript (i.e., before it is submitted for review, and after it is revised, if necessary), and 4) agree to be responsible for any questions about the accuracy or integrity of the research.

Several types of authorship violate these guidelines and should be avoided. Guest authorship is when respected researchers are added out of appreciation, or to have the manuscript be perceived more favorably to get it published or increase its impact. Gift authorship is giving authorship to reward an individual, or as a favor. Ghost authorship is when someone made significant contributions to the paper but is not listed as an author. To increase transparency, some journals require authors to indicate how each individual contributed to the research and manuscript.

2. Apply the guidelines

Conflicts often arise from disagreements about how much people contributed to the research and whether those contributions merit authorship. The best approach is an open, honest, and ongoing discussion about authorship, which we discuss in #3 below. To have effective, informed conversations about authorship, you must understand how to apply the guidelines to your specific situation. The following is a simple rule of thumb that indicates there are three components of authorship. We do not list giving final approval of the manuscript and agreeing to be accountable, but we do consider these essentials of authorship.

  • Thinking – this means contributing to the ideas leading to the hypothesis of the work, designing experiments to address the hypothesis, and/or analyzing the results in the larger context of the literature in the field.
  • Doing – this means performing and analyzing the experiments.
  • Writing – this means editing a draft, or writing the entire paper. The first author often writes the entire first draft.

In our experience, a first author would typically do all three. They also usually coordinate the writing and editing process. Co-authors are typically very involved in at least two of the three, and are somewhat involved in the other. The PI, who oversees and contributes to all three, is often the last, or “senior author.” The “senior author” is typically the “corresponding author”—the person listed as the individual to contact about the paper. The other co-authors are listed between the first and senior author either alphabetically, or more commonly, in order from the largest to smallest contribution.

Problems in assigning authorship typically arise due to people’s interpretations of #1 (thinking) and #2 (doing)—what and how much each individual contributed to a project’s design, execution, and analysis. Different fields or PIs may have their own slight variations on these guidelines. The potential conflicts associated with assigning authorship lead to the most common recommendation for responsibly assigning authorship: discuss authorship expectations early and revisit them during the project.

3. Discuss authorship with your collaborators

Publications are important for career advancement, so you can see why people might be worried about fairness in assigning authorship. If the problem arises from a lack of a shared understanding about contributions to the research, the only way to clarify this is an open discussion. This discussion should ideally take place very early at the beginning of a project, and should be ongoing. Hopefully you work in a laboratory that makes these discussions a natural part of the research process; this makes it much easier to understand the expectations upfront.

We encourage you to speak up about your interest in making a contribution that would merit authorship, especially if you want to earn first authorship. Sometimes norms about authoring papers in a lab make it clear you are expected to first and co-author publications, but it is best to communicate your interest in earning authorship. If the project is not yours, but you wish to collaborate, you can inquire what you may be able to contribute that would merit authorship.

If it is not a norm in your lab to discuss authorship throughout the life of projects, then as a graduate student you may feel reluctant to speak up. You could initiate a conversation with a more senior graduate student, a postdoc, or your PI, depending on the dynamics in the group. You could ask generally about how the lab approaches assignment of authorship, but discussing a specific project and paper may be best. It may feel awkward to ask, but asking early is less uncomfortable than waiting until the end of the project. If the group is already drafting a manuscript and you are told that your contribution is insufficient for authorship, this situation is much more discouraging than if you had asked earlier about what is expected to earn authorship.

How to report findings responsibly

The most significant responsibility of authors is to present their research accurately and honestly. Deliberately presenting misleading information is clearly unethical, but there are significant judgment calls about how to present your research findings. For example, an author can mislead by overstating the conclusions given what the data support.

1. Commit to presenting your findings honestly

Any good scientific manuscript writer will tell you that you need to “tell a good story.” This means that your paper is organized and framed to draw the reader into the research and convince them of the importance of the findings. But, this story must be sound and justified by the data. Other authors are presenting their findings in the best, most “publishable” light, so it is a balancing act to be persuasive but also responsible in presenting your findings in a trustworthy manner. To present your findings honestly, you must be conscious of how you interpret your data and present your conclusions so that they are accurate and not overstated.

One misbehavior known as “HARKing,” Hypothesis After the Results are Known, occurs when hypotheses are created after seeing the results of an experiment, but they are presented as if they were defined prior to collecting the data ( Munafò et al., 2017 ). This practice should be avoided. HARKing may be driven, in part, by a concern in scientific publishing known as publication bias. This bias is a preference that reviewers, editors, and researchers have for papers describing positive findings instead of negative findings ( Carroll, Toumpakari, Johnson, & Betts, 2017 ). This preference can lead to manipulating one’s practices, such as by HARKing, so that positive findings can be reported.

It is important to note that in addition to avoiding misbehaviors such as HARKing, all researchers are susceptible to a number of more subtle traps in judgment. Even the most well-intentioned researcher may jump to conclusions, discount alternative explanations, or accept results that seem correct without further scrutiny ( Nuzzo, 2015 ). Therefore, researchers must not only commit to presenting their findings honestly but consider how they can counteract such traps by slowing down and increasing their skepticism towards their findings.

2. Provide an appropriate amount of detail

Providing enough detail in a manuscript can be a challenge with the word limits imposed by most journals. Therefore, you will need to determine what details to include and which to exclude, or potentially include in the supplemental materials. Methods sections can be long and are often the first to be shortened, but complete methods are important for others to evaluate the research and to repeat the methods in other studies. Even more significant is making decisions about what experimental data to include and potentially exclude from the manuscript. Researchers must determine what data is required to create a complete scientific story that supports the central hypothesis of the paper. On the other hand, it is not necessary or helpful to include so much data in the manuscript, or in supplemental material, that the central point of the paper is difficult to discern. It is a tricky balance.

3. Follow proper citation practices

Of course, responsible authorship requires avoiding plagiarism. Many researchers think that plagiarism is not a concern for them because they assume it is always done intentionally by “copying and pasting” someone else’s words and claiming them as your own. Sometimes poor writing practices, such as taking notes from references without distinguishing between direct quotes and paraphrased material, can lead to including material that is not quoted properly. More broadly, proper citation practices include accurately and completely referencing prior studies to provide appropriate context for your manuscript.

4. Attend to the other important details

The journal will require several pieces of additional information, such as disclosure of sources of funding and potential conflicts of interest. Typically, graduate students do not have relationships that constitute conflicts of interest, but a PI who is a co-author may. In submitting a manuscript, also make sure to acknowledge individuals not listed as authors but who contributed to the work.

5. Share data and promote transparency

Data sharing is a key facet of promoting transparency in science ( Nosek et al., 2015 ). It will be important to know the expectations of the journals in which you wish to publish. Many top journals now require data sharing; for example, sharing your data files in an online repository so others have access to the data for secondary use. Funding agencies like NIH also increasingly require data sharing. To further foster transparency and public trust in research, researchers must deposit their final peer-reviewed manuscripts that report on research funded by NIH to PubMed Central. PubMed makes biomedical and life science research publicly accessible in a free, online database.

Scenario 2 – Authors In Conflict

To prepare a manuscript for publication, a postdoc’s data is added to a graduate student’s thesis project. After working together to combine the data and write the paper, the postdoc requests co-first authorship on the paper. The graduate student balks at this request on the basis that it is their thesis project. In a weekly meeting with the lab’s PI to discuss the status of the paper, the graduate student states that they should divide the data between the authors as a way to prove that the graduate student should be the sole first author. The PI agrees to this attempt to quantify how much data each person contributed to the manuscript. All parties agree the writing and thinking were equally shared between them. After this assessment, the graduate student sees that the postdoc actually contributed more than half of the data presented in the paper. The graduate student and a second graduate student contributed the remaining data; this means the graduate student contributed much less than half of the data in the paper. However, the graduate student is still adamant that they must be the sole first author of the paper because it is their thesis project.

Is the graduate student correct in insisting that it is their project, so they are entitled to be the sole first author?

Co-first authorship became popular about 10 years ago as a way to acknowledge shared contributions to a paper in which authors worked together and contributed equally. If the postdoc contributed half of the data and worked with the graduate student to combine their interpretations and write the first draft of the paper, then the postdoc did make a substantial contribution. If the graduate student wrote much of the first draft of the paper, contributed significantly to the second half of data, and played a major role in the thesis concept and design, this is also a major contribution. We summarized authorship requirements as contributing to thinking, doing, and writing, and we noted that a first author usually contributes to all of these. The graduate student has met all 3 elements to claim first authorship. However, it appears that the postdoc has also met these 3 requirements. Thus, it is at least reasonable for the postdoc to ask about co-first authorship.

The best way to move forward is to discuss their perspectives openly. Both the graduate student and postdoc want first authorship on papers to advance their careers. The postdoc feels they contributed more to the overall concept and design than the graduate student is recognizing, and the postdoc did contribute half of the data. This is likely frustrating and upsetting for the postdoc. On the other hand, perhaps the postdoc is forgetting how much a thesis becomes like “your baby,” so to speak. The work is the graduate student’s thesis, so it is easy to see why the graduate student would feel a sense of ownership of it. Given this fact, it may be hard for the graduate student to accept the idea that they would share first-author recognition for the work. Yet, the graduate student should consider that the manuscript would not be possible without the postdoc’s contribution. Further, if the postdoc was truly being unreasonable, then the postdoc could make the case for sole first authorship based on contributing the most data to the paper, in addition to contributing ideas and writing the paper. The graduate student should consider that the postdoc may be suggesting co-first authorship in good faith.

As with any interpersonal conflict, clear communication is key. While it might be temporarily uncomfortable to voice their views and address this disagreement, it is critical to avoiding permanent damage to their working relationship. The pair should consider each other’s perspectives and potential alternatives. For example, if the graduate student is first author and the postdoc second, at a minimum they could include an author note in the manuscript that describes the contribution of each author. This would make it clear the scope of the postdoc’s contribution, if they decided not to go with co-first authorship. Also, the graduate student should consider their assumptions about co-first authorship. Maybe they assume it makes it appear they contributed less, but instead, perhaps co-first authorship highlights their collaborative approach to science. Collaboration is a desirable quality many (although arguably not all) research organizations look for when they are hiring.

They will also need to speak with others for advice. The pair should definitely speak with the PI who could provide input about how these cases have been handled in the past. Ultimately, if they cannot reach an agreement, the PI, who is likely to be the last or “senior” author, may make the final decision. They should also speak to the other graduate student who is an author.

If either individual is upset with the situation, they will want to discuss it when they have had time to cool down. This might mean taking a day before discussing, or speaking with someone outside of the lab for support. Ideally, all authors on this paper would have initiated this conversation earlier, and the standards in the lab for first authorship would be discussed routinely. Clear communication may have avoided the conflict.

HOW TO USE DECISION-MAKING STRATEGIES TO NAVIGATE CHALLENGES

We have provided advice on some specific challenges you might encounter in research. This final section covers our overarching recommendation that you adopt a set of ethical decision-making strategies. These strategies help researchers address challenges by helping them think through a problem and possible alternatives ( McIntosh et al., 2020 ). The strategies encourage you to gather information, examine possible outcomes, consider your assumptions, and address emotional reactions before acting. They are especially helpful when you are uncertain how to proceed, face a new problem, or when the consequences of a decision could negatively impact you or others. The strategies also help people be honest with themselves, such as when they are discounting important factors or have competing goals, by encouraging them to identify outside perspectives and test their motivations. You can remember the strategies using the acronym SMART .

1. S eek Help

Obtain input from others who can be objective and that you trust. They can assist you with assessing the situation, predicting possible outcomes, and identifying potential options. They can also provide you with support. Individuals to consult may be peers, other faculty, or people in your personal life. It is important that you trust the people you talk with, but it is also good when they challenge your perspective, or encourage you to think in a new way about a problem. Keep in mind that people such as program directors and university ombudsmen are often available for confidential, objective advice.

2. M anage Emotions

Consider your emotional reaction to the situation and how it might influence your assessment of the situation, and your potential decisions and actions. In particular, identify negative emotions, like frustration, anxiety, fear, and anger, as they particularly tend to diminish decision-making and the quality of interactions with others. Take time to address these emotions before acting, for example, by exercising, listening to music, or simply taking a day before responding.

3. A nticipate Consequences

Think about how the situation could turn out. This includes for you, for the research team, and anyone else involved. Consider the short, middle-term, and longer-term impacts of the problem and your potential approach to addressing the situation. Ideally, it is possible to identify win-win outcomes. Often, however, in tough professional situations, you may need to select the best option from among several that are not ideal.

4. R ecognize Rules and Context

Determine if any ethical principles, professional policies, or rules apply that might help guide your choices. For instance, if the problem involves an authorship dispute, consider the authorship guidelines that apply. Recognizing the context means considering the situational factors that could impact your options and how you proceed. For example, factors such as the reality that ultimately the PI may have the final decision about authorship.

5. T est Assumptions and Motives

Examine your beliefs about the situation and whether any of your thoughts may not be justified. This includes critically examining the personal motivations and goals that are driving your interpretation of the problem and thoughts about how to resolve it.

These strategies do not have to be engaged in order, and they are interrelated. For example, seeking help can help you manage emotions, test assumptions, and anticipate consequences. Go back to the scenarios and our advice throughout this article, and you will see many of our suggestions align with these strategies. Practice applying SMART strategies when you encounter a problem and they will become more natural.

Learning practices for responsible research will be the foundation for your success in graduate school and your career. We encourage you to be reflective and intentional as you learn and hope that our advice helps you along the way.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work was supported by the National Human Genome Research Institute (Antes, K01HG008990) and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (UL1 TR002345).

LITERATURE CITED

  • Anderson MS, Horn AS, Risbey KR, Ronning EA, De Vries R, & Martinson BC (2007). What Do Mentoring and Training in the Responsible Conduct of Research Have To Do with Scientists’ Misbehavior? Findings from a National Survey of NIH-Funded Scientists . Academic Medicine , 82 ( 9 ), 853–860. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31812f764c [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Antes AL, Brown RP, Murphy ST, Waples EP, Mumford MD, Connelly S, & Devenport LD (2007). Personality and Ethical Decision-Making in Research: The Role of Perceptions of Self and Others . Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics , 2 ( 4 ), 15–34. doi: 10.1525/jer.2007.2.4.15 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Antes AL, English T, Baldwin KA, & DuBois JM (2018). The Role of Culture and Acculturation in Researchers’ Perceptions of Rules in Science . Science and Engineering Ethics , 24 ( 2 ), 361–391. doi: 10.1007/s11948-017-9876-4 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Antes AL, Kuykendall A, & DuBois JM (2019a). The Lab Management Practices of “Research Exemplars” that Foster Research Rigor and Regulatory Compliance: A Qualitative Study of Successful Principal Investigators . PloS One , 14 ( 4 ), e0214595. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0214595 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Antes AL, Kuykendall A, & DuBois JM (2019b). Leading for Research Excellence and Integrity: A Qualitative Investigation of the Relationship-Building Practices of Exemplary Principal Investigators . Accountability in Research , 26 ( 3 ), 198–226. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2019.1611429 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Antes AL, & Maggi LB Jr. (2021). How to Navigate Trainee-Mentor Relationships and Interpersonal Dynamics in the Lab . Current Protocols Essential Laboratory Techniques. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Asplund M, & Welle CG (2018). Advancing Science: How Bias Holds Us Back . Neuron , 99 ( 4 ), 635–639. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2018.07.045 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Baker M (2016). Is There a Reproducibility Crisis? Nature , 533 , 452–454. doi: 10.1038/533452a [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Barba LA (2016). The Hard Road to Reproducibility . Science , 354 ( 6308 ), 142. doi: 10.1126/science.354.6308.142 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Beall’s List of Potential Predatory Journals and Publishers . (2020). Retrieved from https://beallslist.net/#update [ Google Scholar ]
  • Carroll HA, Toumpakari Z, Johnson L, & Betts JA (2017). The Perceived Feasibility of Methods to Reduce Publication Bias . PloS One , 12 ( 10 ), e0186472–e0186472. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0186472 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Chappell B (2019). Duke Whistleblower Gets More Than $33 Million in Research Fraud Settlement . NPR. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/2019/03/25/706604033/duke-whistleblower-gets-more-than-33-million-in-research-fraud-settlement [ Google Scholar ]
  • Davis MS, Riske-Morris M, & Diaz SR (2007). Causal Factors Implicated in Research Misconduct: Evidence from ORI Case Files . Science and Engineering Ethics , 13 ( 4 ), 395–414. doi: 10.1007/s11948-007-9045-2 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • DeMets DL (1999). Statistics and Ethics in Medical Research . Science and Engineering Ethics , 5 ( 1 ), 97–117. doi: 10.1007/s11948-999-0059-9 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Department of Health and Human Services. (2005). 42 CFR Parts 50 and 93 Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct; Final Rule. Retrieved from https://ori.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/42_cfr_parts_50_and_93_2005.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
  • DePellegrin TA, & Johnston M (2015). An Arbitrary Line in the Sand: Rising Scientists Confront the Impact Factor . Genetics , 201 ( 3 ), 811–813. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • DuBois JM, Anderson EE, Chibnall J, Carroll K, Gibb T, Ogbuka C, & Rubbelke T (2013). Understanding Research Misconduct: A Comparative Analysis of 120 Cases of Professional Wrongdoing . Account Res , 20 ( 5–6 ), 320–338. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2013.822248 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • DuBois JM, & Antes AL (2018). Five Dimensions of Research Ethics: A Stakeholder Framework for Creating a Climate of Research Integrity . Academic Medicine , 93 ( 4 ), 550–555. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000001966 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Else H (2018). Does Science have a Bullying Problem? Nature , 563 , 616–618. doi: 10.1038/d41586-018-07532-5 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Emanuel EJ, Wendler D, & Grady C (2000). What Makes Clinical Research Ethical ? Journal of the American Medical Association , 283 ( 20 ), 2701–2711. doi:jsc90374 [pii] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Evans TM, Bira L, Gastelum JB, Weiss LT, & Vanderford NL (2018). Evidence for a Mental Health Crisis in Graduate Education . Nature Biotechnology , 36 ( 3 ), 282–284. doi: 10.1038/nbt.4089 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Frank DJ (2018). How to Write a Research Manuscript . Current Protocols Essential Laboratory Techniques , 16 ( 1 ), e20. doi: 10.1002/cpet.20 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Goodman SN, Fanelli D, & Ioannidis JPA (2016). What Does Research Reproducibility Mean? Science Translational Medicine , 8 ( 341 ), 341ps312. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aaf5027 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Grudniewicz A, Moher D, Cobey KD, Bryson GL, Cukier S, Allen K, … Lalu MM (2019). Predatory journals: no definition, no defence . Nature , 576 ( 7786 ), 210–212. doi: 10.1038/d41586-019-03759-y [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Head ML, Holman L, Lanfear R, Kahn AT, & Jennions MD (2015). The Extent and Consequences of P-Hacking in Science . PLoS Biology , 13 ( 3 ), e1002106. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002106 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Hofstra B, Kulkarni VV, Munoz-Najar Galvez S, He B, Jurafsky D, & McFarland DA (2020). The Diversity–Innovation Paradox in Science . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 117 ( 17 ), 9284. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1915378117 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (2020). Defining the Role of Authors and Contributors . Retrieved from http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html
  • Keith-Spiegel P, Sieber J, & Koocher GP (2010). Responding to Research Wrongdoing: A User-Friendly Guide . Retrieved from http://users.neo.registeredsite.com/1/4/0/20883041/assets/RRW_11-10.pdf
  • McIntosh T, Antes AL, & DuBois JM (2020). Navigating Complex, Ethical Problems in Professional Life: A Guide to Teaching SMART Strategies for Decision-Making . Journal of Academic Ethics . doi: 10.1007/s10805-020-09369-y [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Meyers LC, Brown AM, Moneta-Koehler L, & Chalkley R (2018). Survey of Checkpoints along the Pathway to Diverse Biomedical Research Faculty . PloS One , 13 ( 1 ), e0190606–e0190606. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0190606 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Munafò MR, Nosek BA, Bishop DVM, Button KS, Chambers CD, Percie du Sert N, … Ioannidis JPA (2017). A manifesto for reproducible science . Nature Human Behaviour , 1 ( 1 ), 0021. doi: 10.1038/s41562-016-0021 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • National Academies of Science. (2009). On Being a Scientist: A Guide to Responsible Conduct in Research . Washington DC: National Academics Press. [ Google Scholar ]
  • National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine. (2017). Fostering Integrity in Research . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press [ Google Scholar ]
  • National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine. (2018a). An American Crisis: The Growing Absence of Black Men in Medicine and Science: Proceedings of a Joint Workshop . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. [ Google Scholar ]
  • National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine. (2018b). Sexual harassment of women: climate, culture, and consequences in academic sciences, engineering, and medicine : National Academies Press. [ Google Scholar ]
  • National Institutes of Health. (2009). Update on the Requirement for Instruction in the Responsible Conduct of Research . NOT-OD-10-019 . Retrieved from https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-10-019.html
  • National Science Foundation. (2017). Important Notice No. 140 Training in Responsible Conduct of Research – A Reminder of the NSF Requirement . Retrieved from https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/issuances/in140.jsp
  • No Place for Bullies in Science. (2018). Nature , 559 ( 7713 ), 151. doi: 10.1038/d41586-018-05683-z [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Norris D, Dirnagl U, Zigmond MJ, Thompson-Peer K, & Chow TT (2018). Health Tips for Research Groups . Nature , 557 , 302–304. doi: 10.1038/d41586-018-05146-5 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Nosek BA, Alter G, Banks GC, Borsboom D, Bowman SD, Breckler SJ, … Yarkoni T (2015). Scientific Standards . Promoting an Open Research Culture. Science , 348 ( 6242 ), 1422–1425. doi: 10.1126/science.aab2374 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Nuzzo R (2015). How Scientists Fool Themselves - and How They Can Stop . Nature , 526 , 182–185. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • O’Connor A (2018). More Evidence that Nutrition Studies Don’t Always Add Up . The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/29/sunday-review/cornell-food-scientist-wansink-misconduct.html [ Google Scholar ]
  • Park A (2012). Great Science Frauds . Time. Retrieved from https://healthland.time.com/2012/01/13/great-science-frauds/slide/the-baltimore-case/ [ Google Scholar ]
  • Plemmons DK, Baranski EN, Harp K, Lo DD, Soderberg CK, Errington TM, … Esterling KM (2020). A Randomized Trial of a Lab-embedded Discourse Intervention to Improve Research Ethics . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 117 ( 3 ), 1389. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1917848117 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Research Institutions Must Put the Health of Labs First. (2018). Nature , 557 ( 7705 ), 279–280. doi: 10.1038/d41586-018-05159-0 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Research Integrity is Much More Than Misconduct . (2019). ( 570 ). doi: 10.1038/d41586-019-01727-0 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Resnik DB (2011). Scientific Research and the Public Trust . Science and Engineering Ethics , 17 ( 3 ), 399–409. doi: 10.1007/s11948-010-9210-x [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Roper RL (2019). Does Gender Bias Still Affect Women in Science? Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews , 83 ( 3 ), e00018–00019. doi: 10.1128/MMBR.00018-19 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Shamoo AE, & Resnik DB (2015). Responsible Conduct of Research (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Steneck NH (2007). ORI Introduction to the Responsible Conduct of Research (Updated ed.). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Winchester C (2018). Give Every Paper a Read for Reproducibility . Nature , 557 , 281. doi: 10.1038/d41586-018-05140-x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

myAU | AU Library | myWCL | Library Home | myLEAGLE Library Account

My Library Banner

Pence Law Library Guides

Library Home | Research Guides | LEAGLE Catalog | E-Journals & Articles | Library Databases | Frequently Used Resources | Ask a Librarian

Publishing Papers: Topic Selection, Preemption Checking & Preparing for Publication: Submitting your Article

  • Writing Publishable Articles
  • Current Awareness Sources
  • Selected Databases & Web Sources
  • Running a Preemption Check
  • Selecting the Best Journal
  • Preparing for Publication
  • Submitting your Article

Pence Law Library Student Publishing Workshop February 3, 2021

Professors Snyder, Postar, and Roddy discuss what makes a good paper, what makes a publishable paper and how to submit to law reviews.  This workshop was held on February 3, 2021. View the  Workshop  here.

Strategic Submission

When to submit.

Student-edited journals are generally open for submissions in August through October and again from February to April. Peak submission time for student journals is between February and March when new editorial boards are looking for content for the next volume and August as school starts. Student editors generally do not review submissions over the summer but start their review around the beginning of the fall semester. Although you may submit at any time, it may be harder to publish because some journals will have already filled their issues. Some experts say the spring “season” is the best time to submit your publication. More information on publishing schedules is available below. 

Supplementary Materials

Provide a cover letter with a short summary of your article and let the editors know why they should publish your paper. Pertinent information may include the timeliness of the topic covered, special qualifications or authority that may have been used and whether the article falls within the purview of that journal. Most journals also require a resume or CV with your submission, but even if they don’t require one, it is a good idea to include one.

The article should be in final form, with complete footnotes, accurate citations and an abstract. Follow the guidelines as to page length and form that each journal provides. 

Expedited Review

If you receive an early offer of publication but still want to wait to hear from other journals, you can usually negotiate additional time with the first offering journal before you have to accept.  You may then ask for an expedited review from your preferred journal.  Make it easy for the editor/expediter by attaching an electronic copy of the paper with your request for expedited review.

Law Journal Submission Services

Submission services ease the administrative burden of submitting multiple copies of an article to multiple law reviews. Through these services, authors upload manuscripts to a website and select the law reviews to which they would like their manuscripts submitted. WCL subscribes to Scholastica. You will not be charged for your submissions to Scholastica as long as you use your AUWCL email address and comply with the requirements listed below.

  • Scholastica The Pence Law Library strongly supports and encourages the publication of AUWCL students’ scholarly work. The library subsidizes student submissions to Scholastica, a platform that streamlines the law review submission process and allows authors to submit articles to numerous law reviews and journals simultaneously. The current cost is $6.50 per submission.
  • Scholastica Sign Up Sign up for an account using your AUWCL email address and then contact the library at [email protected] to be added to our institutional account.

Note the following requirements:

  • The Pence Law Library will pay for no more than 25 submissions per student article
  • Students must have a faculty sponsor who confirms that the work is of publishable quality and agrees to work with the student to identify appropriate journals
  • Students are required to direct-submit where available
  • Students should only submit to realistic journals and must confirm that the journals accept student submissions
  • If a student chooses to submit to more than 25 journals, they are expected to reimburse the law library for the additional cost 
  • WCL graduates are eligible to use the law school’s Scholastica account for 2 calendar years following the date of their graduation

Alternative Forums

Online Journals

Colin Miller, Submission Guide for Online Law Review Supplement , Version 7.0 , (July 22, 2013), available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1410093 .

Contains information on submitting essays and articles to general online law review supplements—covers 49 general law reviews.

Calls for Papers

Calls for Papers are announcements by journals, editors and conference organizers when they are seeking papers on a giving theme. Calls for papers can be found on the Legal Scholarship Blog, http://legalscholarshipblog.com/ .

Writing Competitions

Writing competitions may offer guaranteed placement in particular publications. Writing competitions are available at http://wcl.american.libguides.com/competitions

WCL Digital Commons

Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law is an electronic repository of the school’s research and scholarship. The repository contains works from over 176 disciplines and hundreds of scholars and authors. It has a large readership and audience and recently marked over 1 million downloads of WCL scholarship.

Certain student papers can be submitted to Digital Commons. Currently Digital Commons accepts submission of the following student papers:

  • Any paper or article published in an American University Publication (AULR, ALR, AUILR, any of the Briefs, etc.)
  • Upper Level Writing Requirements that have been marked by the professor for submission to the library
  • Papers and articles published in non-WCL journals (with the proper copyright permission)
  • Distinguished Student Research Papers
  • Papers submitted to writing competitions
  • Student Blogs 

Information on Submitting your Article

  • Allen Rostron & Nancy Levit, Information for Submitting Articles to Law Reviews & Journals This document contains information about submitting articles to law reviews and journals, including the methods for submitting an article, any special formatting requirements, how to contact them to request an expedited review, and how to contact them to withdraw an article from consideration. It covers 199 law reviews.
  • Barry Friedman, Fixing Law Reviews, 67 Duke L.J. 1297 (2018).
  • Colin Miller, Submission Guide for Online Law Review Supplement, Version 7.0, (July 22, 2013) This document contains information about submitting essays and articles to general online law review supplements. It covers 49 general online law reviews.
  • Information for Submitting Articles to Specialty & Non-Flagship Law Journals (August 2020 This article, by Michael P. Goodyear, provides information specifically for student-edited specialty journals. It includes information on how to submit, format and whether student submissions are accepted.
  • Jason P. Nance & Dylan J. Steinberg, The Law Review Article Selection Process: Results from a National Study (2007)
  • Law Review Article Submissions Insights A data-driven look into the yearly legal scholarship cycle A survey of law review submission cycles.
  • The Law Review Submission Process: A Guide for (and by) the Perplexed
  • Leah M. Christensen & Julie Oseid, Navigating the Law Review Article Selection Process: An Empirical Study of Those with All the Power—Student Editors , 59 Univ. St. Thomas L. Rev. 465 (2008).
  • Robert Luther III, Practical Tips for Placing and Publishing Your First Law Review Article, 50 U. Rich. L. Rev. ONLINE 63 (2016).
  • Submission of Law Student Articles for Publication The purposes of this essay are twofold. First, it offers a number of suggestions for law students (and implicitly for students in other graduate programs) who want to publish their research papers. Second, this essay presents a chart of the policies of 194 law reviews with respect to whether they will publish comments submitted by non-law review members who are students at their home school or notes, comments or articles submitted by law students from other schools.
  • Information for Submitting to Online Law Review Companions This document contains information about submitting essays, commentaries, reviews, responses, and other writings to online companions to the main law reviews and journals at selected law schools.

The Pence Law Library wishes you every success in getting your paper published.  For more information and questions, please contact us at [email protected]

  • << Previous: Preparing for Publication
  • Last Updated: Jan 25, 2024 2:14 PM
  • URL: https://wcl.american.libguides.com/publishingpapers

Stanford University

Search form

How to write academic papers: a comprehensive guide.

BY SAMANTHA ANDERSON

The fact that the majority of students consider their academic papers as one of the most complex assignments does not seems surprising at all. Why is that so? Why are these assignments so complicated? There are a few main reasons. First of all, in order to provide a high-quality paper, one has to fulfill a whole list of subtasks, such as choosing the right topic, organizing the whole paper, finding relevant literature, conducting a research, etc… The actual writing is just one phase of the whole process. The problem with this phase is that it is not an easy task to provide the content that is concise and informative, but at the same time interesting and original. It seems that the writing talent is of great help in this process, but unfortunately, only a small percentage of students actually possess this kind of talent. Besides that, every academic term paper writing has to be done in accordance with a specific set of writing norms and rules (for example, APA or Chicago), so students should also get familiar with these.

The additional problem is that these obligations are very common, so they have a significant influence of the final grades. In the text below, a few tips and pieces of advice on how to provide a high-quality academic paper will be provided, so students should get familiar with these as they can be very beneficial for their future education.

Types of academic writing

Of course, there are different types of academic papers, depending on their content, research design, writing style, audience, etc… These are some of the most common types of academic papers.

            Research paper

This is one of the most common types of academic writing. This is a paper that requires the combination of creativity, research skill, and the knowledge of a particular topic. The creativity takes place at the beginning of the paper in which a student should elaborate the main idea of his research and explain why this domain is investigated. Although it is not always the case, these papers often include the actual research process, so a student has to collect his own data. This indicates that the research design has to be constructed. A research design contains information such as who will be the participants (i.e. the sample of a particular population), how the data will be collected, what instruments or questionnaire will be used, what kind of statistical analysis will be provided, etc… At the end, the results have to be interpreted and discussed.

            Essays

            Essays don’t include the process of collecting the data, but it does include the literature review, i.e. the process of collecting relevant information on a particular topic. Of course, one should only use academic and reliable sources of information (scientific books, articles, scientific papers, etc…). There are 4 main types of essays:

  • The expository essay (the elaboration and explanation of a particular topic or idea; for example, “The main postulates of the Roman law”)
  • The persuasive essay (the writer aims to defend a certain claim or a point of view; “Why smoking is harmful?”);
  • The analytical essay (the process of analyzing a certain domain, such as a work of art, some natural process, etc…; “The influence of Homer’s Iliad on poetry”)
  • The argumentative essay (elaborating why a certain point of view is more accurate than the other ones; “Why are non-physical forms of punishment more effective than the physical ones?”)

Academic proposal

This type of academic paper can be considered as a concise version of the scientific paper. It represents detailed and elaborated plan of the research. Another important thing to mention is that it is submitted before the actual research takes place.

Writing pitfalls

Although every student has his own style and specific writing issues, there are a few very common pitfalls.

Using complex expressions

A lot of students make mistake by thinking that they will make a positive impression by using complex expressions and complicated sentences. However, the truth is usually quite the opposite; this kind of elaboration can often represent the compensation for the lack of understanding a particular construct.

Forcing productivity

In the domain of writing, productivity is tightly connected to the creativity and inspiration, and the problem with these two is that they cannot be forced. Some students believe that they should finish their paper “in one breath”, so they force themselves to write even if they are tired. The best advice is to make a short break (preferably in a physically active manner) whenever a student feels that he is getting tired and losing his focus.

Writing in Second/Third person

Academic papers are almost always written in a third person. This way the content sounds more objective, as it can be seen in these examples.

Second person: You shouldn’t smoke because it is bad for you.

Third person: Smoking should be avoided, as it can cause serious physical consequences.

Citations and References

Every academic paper has to be written in accordance with a certain set of writing rules. The three of the most common ones are APA (American Psychological Association), MLA (Modern Language Association), and Chicago. Considering that there are minor differences between these citation styles, only one of them will be further elaborated, as it is very simple to find the examples of other two citation systems online.

APA is mostly used in psychology and education domain. Here are some examples:

In-text citation:

(Author, year of publication, page number); “People are not just on looking hosts of internal mechanisms orchestrated by environmental events” (Bandura, 2001, p.4)

Author, A. A. (Year of publication).  Title of work: Capital letter also for subtitle . Location: Publisher.; Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity . New York: Springer-Verlag.

Author, A. (Publication Year). Article title. Periodical Title, Volume(Issue), pp.-pp.; Bruer, J. T. (1997). Education and the brain: A bridge too far. Educational researcher, 26 (8), 4-16.

Writing assignments are considered to be one of the most complex academic obligations for a good reason. In this text, some of the main domains were elaborated and a few pieces of advice were provided. With dedication and these tips in hand, it is almost certain that every student can ensure a high-quality academic paper of any kind.

About the author:

Samantha Anderson is a passionate teacher. She found her destiny in developing new educational approaches. Which she kindly shares on the blog. Her free time is dedicated to writing college essays for students in order to help them find the real purpose of it. according to Samantha’s lifestyle, rock climbing is the best thing for relaxation.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Stanford University

  • Stanford Home
  • Maps & Directions
  • Search Stanford
  • Emergency Info
  • Terms of Use
  • Non-Discrimination
  • Accessibility

© Stanford University , Stanford , California 94305 .

every student must submit their research paper by monday

How To Submit

Journal of Student Research (JSR) is a Multidisciplinary and Faculty-reviewed journal devoted to the Rapid Dissemination of current student research. The journal seeks papers that are novel, integrative, and written in a way that is accessible to a wide audience which includes an array of disciplines. The content of the journal ranges from Applied research to Theoretical research. In general, papers are welcomed from all topics.

The first author of the submission must be an Undergraduate or Graduate student currently enrolled or graduated from an accredited academic institution. In both cases, advisor's information must be listed at submission.

Students who have already graduated must submit a letter as a supplementary file from their advisor testifying of their attendance at the university and conducting the research at the time. Submitted manuscripts will not be eligible for publication without the advisor information listed as such during submission.

Only 5 authors including advisors are free of charge per manuscript submission. For additional author charges, see Article Processing Charge (APC) section.

High School Student Submissions: Please use the journal's High School Student Portal ( www.jsr.org/hs ) to submit.

We accept Manuscript Submissions of the Following Types:

  • Research Articles : Submissions of a manuscript that is your original research.
  • Review Articles : Original review or analysis on a topic of your choice.
  • Other Articles (Non-Peer Reviewed) : Manuscripts that are Research Project, Analysis, Short Essay, Opinion, or an update on Current Affairs. These submissions will not be refereed by our faculty reviewers but will be subject to review by the editorial board before publication.

Support Center

  • If you have any questions or concerns, please email us:  technical @jsr.org
  • Professionalism is extremely important to us. Please be courteous in all your communication with the JSR staff.
  • First and Last Name
  • Name of your affiliated Institution (High School, College, or University)
  • Current Grade Level , or Educational status
  • How or Where did you find out about the Journal
  • Your Question or Concern

Table of Contents

Submission Requirements

Indexing & Metadata

Submissions Process

To create a new account, please click on Register and follow the instructions. Once Logged in using your username and password, the portal dashboard will open where you will see the Active Submissions queue. This page lists the submissions currently in the editorial process and has access to past submissions that have been made to the journal under the "Archives" Tab. The authors can submit a new article by clicking the appropriate link for " New Submission ".

The submission process for the Authors is broken down into five steps, with guidance provided at each step. Authors do not need to complete the five steps in one session but can return to what will be listed as on the submissions queue as " Incomplete ".

Authors must read and acknowledge that they have completed and are compliant with the requirements:

  • Download the Submission Word Template (Dotx file) which will help you to get started: Template Link
  • The manuscript text is single-spaced ; Page size 8.5" x 11" inches (Letter); 20 pages maximum , uses T imes New Roman Size 10-point black font text with 1-inch margins on all sides.
  • Article Title : Font Bolded and Size 18
  • Heading Level 1 : Font Bolded and Size 14
  • Heading Level 2 :  Size 12
  • Heading Level 3: Font italicized and Size 12
  • Heading Level 4 : Text underlines and Size 10
  • Article Title  can have a maximum length of 100 characters, including spaces.
  • Manuscript Abstract can have a maximum length of 250 words .
  • All illustrations, figures, graphs, charts, and tables are placed within the text at the appropriate points with their respective title and legend, rather than at the end of the manuscript. They must be all centered appropriately.
  • All illustrations, figures, graphs, and charts should be inserted as image files in the word document (Only PNG and JPEG are acceptable) and must be individually uploaded as "Image File" during Step 2 of the submission along with the manuscript and other supplemental files. The title must be placed under the figure/graphs/charts.
  • All image files uploaded must be named appropriately such as Fig1.png, Fig2.png, etc. Figures can only be labeled as whole numbers such as Fig 1, Fig 2, Fig 3, and NOT Fig 1a, Fig 1b, and so on.
  • Multi-panel figures must be a single image file . Each panel must be labeled such as (1a), (1b), (1c), etc in the image; this figure must be labeled as Figure 1 and all individual panels described appropriately in the legend.
  • Tables must be created in the word document. Do not insert and label an image as a table in the word document. All text color must be black, and the heading rows/columns must be shaded with light gray colors. The title must be placed over the Table.
  • Equations must be created in the word document using the Insert Equation tool, and cannot be an inserted image file.
  • Make use of the Bulleted and Numbered lists very minimally.
  • We recommend the authors use the APA style guide for references, but you can use a discipline-specific reference style guide. References must be included at the end of the manuscript . Please leave one line spacing between each new reference and start on a new line .
  • Where available, URLs or DOIs links for the references MUST be provided.
  • The paper itself should only include the topic and the write up of the topic. All author/teacher/adviser names, email addresses, affiliations should be submitted in the Metadata (see below in the indexing and metadata section).
  • Documentation of Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval or exemption, if required, was secured by the authors prior to submitting the manuscript and must be uploaded during Step 2 of the submission process.
  • Supplemental files  such as a copy of the images, appendix, forms, surveys, etc. must be uploaded during Step 2 of the submission process.
  • The submission has not been previously published, nor is it before another journal for consideration (or an explanation has been provided in Comments to the Editor). Despite the Plagiarism check that we do, if later there are any complaints of plagiarism with proof, the submission will immediately be removed.

Metadata Elements to include during submission

Title : Enter the topic of the paper (100 characters with spaces).

Abstract : Summary of your research/review from Intro to conclusion

List of Contributors : Main author’s name and email address and for each additional author click on add contributor and include their names and email addresses. Include your faculty/teacher/advisor name and email address here as well.

Categories : Select a grade classification of the first author (Freshman, Sophomore, Junior, Senior).

Discipline : What area of study the paper belongs to (psychology, mathematics, microbiology, chemistry, physics, etc.) Press Enter to separate each individual item in the text box.

Keywords : Keywords give your paper additional visibility when readers are searching for similar topics. If your topic is “AI in the high school classroom setting” Your keywords should say “artificial intelligence, high school, classroom setting” Press Enter to separate each individual item in the text box.

Supporting Agencies : Write the name of your University or College along with any other institution that had supported the authors in conducting their research/review. Press Enter to separate each individual item in the text box.

References or Bibliography : Please copy and insert all the citations for the manuscript in the text-box.

Advantages of indexing

Authors are encouraged to complete the indexing of their submission in Step 3 of the Submission process and will have the opportunity to review and revise the metadata as part of the editorial process. The metadata for this journal will be "harvested" by a number of research-dedicated search engines that create, in effect, a research index or guide. Work that is well indexed will be that much more easily found by those who need it and are more likely to cite it. While there are limits to the number of terms by which a work is indexed, Authors are encouraged to think about how their work is positioned and found by virtue of this detailed indexing.

The Author(s) will be contacted by the editors with their decision once the review process is completed.

Reviewers are selected by the Editorial Staff at the Journal of Student Research and the estimated time for the review process is 12-24 weeks. JSR follows the double-blinded closed reviewing policy where the identity of the author is not revealed to the reviewer and vice versa.

Following are the items that the referees evaluate as they review the manuscript:

  • Are the main claims of the paper novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.
  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required, and will this additional information improve the paper?
  • Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?
  • If the paper is considered unsuitable for publication in its present form, does the study itself show sufficient potential that the authors should be encouraged to resubmit a revised version?
  • Is the manuscript clearly enough written so that it is understandable to non-specialists? If not, how could it be improved?
  • Have the authors cited the previous literature appropriately?
  • Referees rate the Significance, Originality, Quality, and Clarity of the manuscript.

Scholarly feedback upon reviewing the manuscript by the referees will be provided to the author. This feedback will not only help authors identify areas of improvement to their submission but help them better understand the process in order to be successful at publication.

Editor Decision

If a submission is accepted, it will then proceed to the Editing stage of the editorial process.

Resubmit for Review . If the Section Editor's decision is that the submission should be revised and then resubmitted for peer review, the Author should first indicate their willingness to undertake the revisions, using the Editor/Author Correspondence. Then, when the revisions have been completed, the Author uploads the version for the second round of reviews. The Section Editor will submit it to the same Reviewers or to one or more new Reviewers, and notify the Author when a decision has been reached in a similar manner to the initial review.

Article Processing Charge (APC)

Journal of Student Research utilizes an Open Access Model where all published articles are made freely available to anyone to read/download. We provide our authors and readers with high-quality services, such as editorial triaging of submissions, facilitating a collaborative faculty provided peer-review, plagiarism checks, quality assurance of articles, management of production services (i.e. copyediting, layout editing, and quality control checks), indexing, archiving, and long term preservation of published articles via professional preservation networks and the journal platform. To continue to provide these services the authors are required to pay the Article Processing Charge (APC).

The APC for Manuscripts is paid in Two Phases (additional service fee applicable):

  • Pre-review APC: USD 50 for all students at submission.
  • USD 250 for undergraduate and graduate Students.

ALL ARTICLE PROCESSING CHARGES AND JSR FEES ARE STRICTLY NON-REFUNDABLE

Additional Author Charge :

Only 5 authors (including advisors) per submission are allowed to be included. To include any additional author/advisor to the manuscript's contributor list will cost a fee of $25 per individual. The authors will pay this fee only when accepted for publication.

FAST TRACK REVIEW

  • Fast track review option allows us to expedite the publication process (5-6 weeks).
  • If accepted for publication by the editorial board, the manuscript will be published in our current issue of the journal after necessary revisions are made if requested by the reviewers.
  • Any fees associated with the Fast Track Review are strictly NON-REFUNDABLE .

Announcements

Call for papers: volume 13 issue 2.

If you are an undergraduate or graduate student at a college or university aspiring to publish, we are accepting submissions. Submit Your Article Now!

Deadline: 11:59 p.m. February 29, 2024

About this Publishing System

How to publish a research paper as a high school/undergrad student?

Just few years ago, publishing a research paper seems to be relevant only for Master’s Degree students and PhD candidates. However, as competition stifles, it has become more common among top high school and undergraduate students to publish their research paper as a way to distinguish themselves from other students in the admission process. As a high school and college student, the question is – how to publish a research paper? 

Publishing a paper is not an easy task. There are many components in a research paper to think about – research paper framework, topic selection, literature review, research methodology and methods, research analysis and results, citations. It is a combination of showcasing your academic ability, critical thinking and logical thinking, and getting a research paper published is a valid way to endorse these important skills for a student.

How to publish a research paper? – Format requirements

Completing a professional research paper requires you paying attention to the format and content. A research paper usually consists of at least 3,000 words, on a chosen topic. The format of the paper includes the title, abstract, keywords and appropriate citations. The content of the paper includes the introduction, research objectives, aims and questions, critical analysis of literature reviews, research methodology, research methods, research analysis and findings, recommendations, limitations and conclusion.

How to publish a research paper? The researcher must prepare and complete every detail carefully.

How to publish a research paper with a teacher, lecturer or professor

If you have a good relationship with your high school teacher or university lecturer, and you know that they are working on a relevant research paper, you may ask to complete some experiments or research projects together under their guidance. In cases like this, it is typically more applicable for students who have exceptional domain knowledge and will be an asset to the team. Students are also expected to conduct and complete data collection and analysis, and help out with even the most trivial task.

How to publish a research paper? After the research has achieved certain results, the article may be published and with prior discussion, you can put your name in it.

Finding a lecturer or professor to co-publish is not the easiest way to publish a research paper, but once succeeded, it will definitely be a huge highlight in your resume.

If the teachers around you are not working on a research project, you may start looking online for collaboration. There are lecturers and professors from US and UK universities who need an extra helping hand. Google is your best friend!

Search online and email relevant publishers

The type of publisher to which the paper is submitted is very important. Before selecting a journal, you should know the type of content your research paper entails, and choose the same type of journal to submit your paper. Many amateur researchers fail to publish their papers due to improper selection of journals. For example, if you have written a science paper, then you should search for a science-relevant journal publisher.

How to publish a research paper? High school students would also have a higher chance of having their paper published if they select journals specifically targeted at high school students.

Professional research journals generally have their own official websites and submission contacts. Search for a relevant journal website, email or submit your application along with your completed research paper and you will get a chance to publish your research paper.

Participate in academic conference

Some universities with strong academic support often organize academic conferences. An academic conference is a meeting which researchers gather to present their latest findings within their field of work. The key idea of an academic conference is to exchange ideas, participate in a healthy discussion and to keep up with emerging trends. The side benefit of participating in an academic conference is that if you have interesting emerging research, the organizers will collect your findings and submit them. Here are some academic conferences suggested by Imperial College London.

How to publish a research paper? If your paper is included in the proceedings of the conference, then it can be published for free.

Journals which high school students can publish a research paper

  • Journal of Emerging Investigators (JEI) – A peer-reviewed journal that publishes original research conducted by middle and high school students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. Website: https://www.emerginginvestigators.org/
  • Young Scientist Journal (YSJ) – An international journal that accepts original research papers, reviews, and commentaries from high school students across various scientific disciplines. Website: https://ysjournal.com/
  • The Concord Review – A quarterly journal that publishes high school students’ academic research papers in history and the social sciences. Website: http://www.tcr.org/
  • The Journal of High School Science Research (JHSSR) – A peer-reviewed journal dedicated to publishing research conducted by high school students in scientific fields. Website: https://www.jhssr.org/
  • The Rostrum – A publication that showcases exemplary research, essays, and creative works by high school students in various disciplines, including science, humanities, and social sciences. Website: http://therostrum.net/

Journals which undergraduate students can publish a research paper

  • Journal of Undergraduate Research (JUR) – A multidisciplinary journal that accepts research papers from undergraduate students across various fields. Website: https://jur.byu.edu/
  • The Undergraduate Journal of Psychology at Berkeley (UJPB) – Publishes original research in psychology conducted by undergraduate students. Website: https://psychology.berkeley.edu/undergraduate-journal-psychology-berkeley
  • The Yale Review of Undergraduate Research in Psychology (YRURP) – A journal dedicated to publishing undergraduate research in psychology and related fields. Website: https://yrurp.org/
  • Inquiry: The Journal of Undergraduate Research at the University of New Hampshire – Publishes research across various disciplines conducted by undergraduate students. Website: https://www.unh.edu/inquiryjournal/
  • Journal of Young Investigators (JYI) – An international, student-run journal that accepts research articles from undergraduate students in science and engineering fields. Website: https://www.jyi.org/
  • The American Journal of Undergraduate Research (AJUR) – A multidisciplinary journal that showcases undergraduate research across different fields. Website: https://www.ajuronline.org/
  • The Berkeley Scientific Journal (BSJ) – Publishes research conducted by undergraduate students in the sciences, mathematics, and engineering. Website: https://bsj.berkeley.edu/

Next, you may be interested in one of our students who published his research paper on JOURNYS.

computer science competitions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

IMAGES

  1. 8 Best Websites for Accessing Research Papers for Students

    every student must submit their research paper by monday

  2. How to Write Any College Paper Last Minute, how to write a research

    every student must submit their research paper by monday

  3. How to Submit Your Research Paper to the JAMA Network

    every student must submit their research paper by monday

  4. Submit Paper@ IJIRST.org International Journal Peer-Reviewed Online

    every student must submit their research paper by monday

  5. A research paper is written after a student performs intensive research

    every student must submit their research paper by monday

  6. Call For Paper

    every student must submit their research paper by monday

VIDEO

  1. #16 week Internship Report writing B. Ed 4 Semester practical File

  2. Seven Days Online workshop on How to write a Quantitative research paper

  3. Research paper discussion

  4. Internship Report Writing During Lockdown Period,Work Assigned by B.Ed.Department,Lucknow University

  5. Too Busy To Write Papers? You're LYING To Yourself

  6. 2 essays questions and 1 template ?

COMMENTS

  1. MD Research and Thesis Requirement (HST)

    To fulfill the requirements of the MD degree, students must submit a thesis by the first Monday in February of their final year. The thesis should be based upon original, scholarly and creative work done either in the laboratory or the clinic.

  2. Student Scientists Are Publishing Their Research In This Peer-Reviewed

    The submission guidelines for the journal are broad: Any hypothesis-driven experimental research is fair game. Many of the papers are in natural sciences, but not all, said Soldat-Valenzuela....

  3. teaching

    The impression that is perceived is that the online nature of the submission system makes students take slightly more liberties with deadlines than when assignments had to be handed in, in a face-to-face situation - although it is clear that even then there will always be a certain percentage of people with difficulties respecting deadlines.

  4. How strict should you be? A guide to assignment due dates.

    If a student misses a deadline, they can submit the assessment late, but their score will be penalized a specified amount (e.g. one letter grade per day). This approach is more common for midterm assessments, or for courses with single high-stakes assessments, such as a research paper that students work on throughout the term.

  5. Rules for All Projects

    All projects must be approved by a Scientific Review Committee (SRC), and when necessary must also be approved by an Institutional Review Board (IRB), Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC), and/or Institutional Biosafety Committee (IBC). Respect for Confidentiality and Intellectual Property.

  6. Writing a Research Paper

    Remember, even the most seasoned academic veterans have had to learn how to write a research paper at some point in their career. Therefore, with diligence, organization, practice, a willingness to learn (and to make mistakes!), and, perhaps most important of all, patience, students will find that they can achieve great things through their ...

  7. Ph.D Students' Guide to Publishing: Expert Advice & Resources

    Where Should Students Get Published? When deciding which publications to pursue, students should consider the research aims of each and their likelihood of getting published. Newer journals tend to take more submissions as they are still working on building up their roster of contributors.

  8. Submitting Your Dissertation

    Dissertation Submission Checklist Formatting Your Dissertation Publishing Options Submitting Your Dissertation English Language Proficiency Research PhD Program Requirements Secondary Fields Teaching Year of Graduate Study (G-Year) Master's Degrees

  9. A Guide to Writing a Scientific Paper: A Focus on High School Through

    Scientists must submit their articles for examination by other scientists familiar with the area of research, who decide whether the work was conducted properly and whether the results add to the knowledge base and are conveyed well enough to merit publication. 2 If a manuscript passes the scrutiny of peer-review, it has the potential to be ...

  10. How to Publish a Research Paper In High School: 19 Journals and

    Curieux Academic Journal is a non-profit run by students and was founded in 2017 to publish outstanding research by high school and middle school students. Curieux publishes one issue per month (twelve per year), so there are many opportunities to get your research published.

  11. Find and correct the errors in agreement in the following ...

    answer answered Find and correct the errors in agreement in the following sentences: 1. Every students must submit their research paper by monday 2.Have everyone passed their examination booklet? 3.If a person is trusted, you will develop a sense of responsibility

  12. How to Conduct Responsible Research: A Guide for Graduate Students

    Abstract. Researchers must conduct research responsibly for it to have an impact and to safeguard trust in science. Essential responsibilities of researchers include using rigorous, reproducible research methods, reporting findings in a trustworthy manner, and giving the researchers who contributed appropriate authorship credit.

  13. A Blueprint For High School Students To Pursue Research And ...

    Research can be a life-changing experience for a high schooler. It gives them a chance to gain hands-on instruction beyond the classroom and be exposed to the dynamics of a lab environment. In ...

  14. Teaching a Research Unit

    CommonLit has your back. CommonLit's 360 curriculum provides research units for grades 6-10 that will help students complete independent research and craft evidence-based research papers. Get students excited about their research with Essential Questions designed around timely topics

  15. What Every Student Should Know about College Research Paper Format

    How to Format an APA Paper. The main rules for a college APA format paper are: Use a standard font. Suitable options include Times New Roman, Calibri, Verdana, and Arial. Set one-inch page margins. Use double-line spacing. Indent each new paragraph by half an inch. Center the information on the title page. This information includes the title of ...

  16. Submitting your Article

    Students should only submit to realistic journals and must confirm that the journals accept student submissions; ... who want to publish their research papers. Second, this essay presents a chart of the policies of 194 law reviews with respect to whether they will publish comments submitted by non-law review members who are students at their ...

  17. How To Write Academic Papers: A Comprehensive Guide

    The best advice is to make a short break (preferably in a physically active manner) whenever a student feels that he is getting tired and losing his focus. Academic papers are almost always written in a third person. This way the content sounds more objective, as it can be seen in these examples.

  18. PDF Harvard University Quick Guide for Researchers: 12 Essentials Every

    All sponsored proposals1 that seek external funding must be submitted to the sponsor by the appropriate sponsored office authorized to submit external sponsored proposals on behalf of the President and Fellows of Harvard College.2 To submit proposals for external funding, you must have Principal Investigator (PI) status pursuant to your

  19. A step-by-step guide for creating and formatting APA Style student papers

    Double-space the whole title page. Place the paper title three or four lines down from the top of the page. Add an extra double-spaced blank like between the paper title and the byline. Then, list the other title page elements on separate lines, without extra lines in between.

  20. How To Submit

    Metadata Elements to include during submission. Title: Enter the topic of the paper (100 characters with spaces).. Abstract: Summary of your research/review from Intro to conclusion. List of Contributors: Main author's name and email address and for each additional author click on add contributor and include their names and email addresses.Include your faculty/teacher/advisor name and email ...

  21. How to publish a research paper as a high school/undergrad student?

    Completing a professional research paper requires you paying attention to the format and content. A research paper usually consists of at least 3,000 words, on a chosen topic. The format of the paper includes the title, abstract, keywords and appropriate citations. The content of the paper includes the introduction, research objectives, aims ...

  22. Submission Guidelines: Research in Education: Sage Journals

    Review papers (graduate student): up to 5000 words Critically analytic syntheses of relevant literature in areas covered by the journal, demonstrating high quality student scholarship. Authors must be a student, i.e. not yet holding a doctoral qualification, at the time of publication, and papers must be identified as a 'Review paper (graduate ...

  23. Quora

    We would like to show you a description here but the site won't allow us.