1. Anatomy of a
Journal Article
Moving from conceptual to operational
(and what that means).
2. Agenda
• Types of information sources in
the sciences
• The role and purpose of articles
• Structure of a research article
• Parts of a research article
• How to read them
3. Types of Sources
• Book chapters
• Books
• Paper presentations at conferences
• Invited talks at conferences
• Poster presentations at conferences
• Symposia/informal meetings
• Special Reports
• Journal articles
4. Journal Article Types
• Empirical – based on new data
• Review – summarizes existing work
• Theoretical – introduces a new theory
• Statistical – introduces a new
statistical technique
• All are available in short and long
forms
5. The Empirical Journal Article is our focus
• A summary of an experimental study or
series of studies
• The primary record of psychological
knowledge – this is how scientists share
information with one another and for
posterity.
• A big yardstick for hiring, pay, promotions,
tenure, respect, and the most crucial part of
the CV
6. The Empirical Journal Article
• Peer-reviewed
• Reviewed also by a journal editor
• Tough to get published
• Cited in other articles, review articles,
books, and misreported in popular press.
• Biased in favor of significant results
7. Academic Publishing:
Flaws with the Process
• https://medium.com/@dr_eprice/academic-publishing-is-
an-exploitative-farce-b367ceadd3c5
• Explains how academic articles are used to determine a
professional’s success.
• Also goes into some of the flaws with the publication
process.
8. Types of Journals
• Monthly, Quarterly, or Annually Published
by Societies
• General (e.g. Current Directions
Psychological Science) and Specific
(Political Cognition; Personal
Relationships) Journals exist
• Vary in Prestige (JPSP-Psych Review)
9. Generally, only
significant results are
published…
• The File Drawer
Problem: Studies that
don’t work go “in the
file drawer” and are
never seen again.
• Read about it here:
https://www.ma.utexas.
edu/users/mks/statmista
kes/filedrawer.html
•
11. Anatomy of a Journal
Article
Chapter 3: Planning Research
Concepts That Are Clarified in the Different Sections of a Research Report.
Introduction
• What is the general topic of the research article?
• What do we know about this topic from previous research?
• What are the authors trying to demonstrate in their own research?
• What are their hypotheses?
Methods
Participants--Who took part in the research
• How many people (or animals) were studied?
• If there were nonhuman animals, what kind were they?
• If there were people, what were their characteristics (e.g., average and range of age, gender, race
or ethnicity, were they volunteers or were they paid)?
12. Chapter 3: Planning Research
1
Apparatus and Materials–What did the researchers need to carry out their study?
• What kind of stimuli, questions, etc. were used?
• How many different kinds of activities did participants complete?
• What instrumentation was used to present material to participants and to record their responses?
Procedure–What did the people actually do during the research session?
• After the participants arrived what did they do?
• What did the experimenters do as they interacted with participants?
Results
• What were patterns of behaviors among participants?
• Did behaviors differ when different groups were compared?
• What type of behaviors are predictable in the different testing conditions?
• What were the results of any statistical tests?
13. Chapter 3: Planning Research
1
Discussion
• What do the results mean?
• What explanations can you develop for why the participants responded as they did?
• What psychological processes help you explain participants’ responses?
• What questions have not been answered fully?
• How do your results relate to the research cited in the introduction?
• How do your results relate to other kinds of research?
• What new ideas emerge that you could evaluate in a subsequent experiment?
Reference
What research was cited in the research report (e.g., work published in journals or other written sources,
research presentations, in online sources)?
15. Title
• Clear but specific, punchy when possible.
“Learning (Not) to Talk About Race: When Older Children
Underperform in Social Categorization”
“How do I love thee? Let me count the J’s: Implicit Egotism and
Interpersonal Attraction”
“It’s all Relative: Sexual Aversions and Moral Judgments Regarding Sex
Among Siblings” (yup this one’s real)
“Working Memory Capacity, Attentional Focus, and Problem Solving” (see
you don’t have to use a cute phrase in front of a colon, it’s just really popular to do
so)
16.
17. Abstract
• Short summary of the study
• It’s the thing everybody skims to see if they need to
actually read your paper.
• It’s also the thing you should skim when looking for
papers.
• Should be conceptual
• Describes purpose, study, and results
• 100-200 words
• What you submit to a conference
18. Introduction
• Reviews the literature on the topic
• Summarizes past studies that are relevant
• Organization is very important
• Begins with very broad general findings on the topic (e.g.
self-esteem)
• Works it way down to more specific concepts (e.g. implicit
self-esteem versus explicit self esteem)
• Ends with a hypothesis pertaining to an IV and a DV
19. Methods
• Where operationalization occurs
• Theoretical constructs are turned into specific
measures
• The specific study is described in detail
• Easiest section to write, often to read as well
20. Operationalization:
translates conceptual
variables into:
• Specific measures (e.g. IQ score, Rosenberg self-esteem
scale, Myers-Briggs Personality Type Indicator)
• Specific manipulations (e.g., having the person you play
a game with be either white or black, giving a child
positive versus negative feedback)
21.
22. Methods Sub-Sections
• Participants
• Recruitment, demographics
• Materials
• Operationalized measures and manipulations are described
• And cited
• Procedure
• A step-by-step walkthrough of what participants experience, or what
the experimenter does.
23. Results
A good results section should:
• Rehash the theoretical question
(briefly)
• Then deliver the answer (say directly
if the hypothesis was supported)
• Describe the statistical tests
24. Results: Describing Stats
• Name the specific statistic:
• One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)
• Multiple Regression
• Within-groups T-test
• Report the p-value – significance level
• Refer to Tables
• If there’s an interaction between multiple
variables, break it down
25. Discussion
• Should open with clear statement on
hypothesis
• Are findings consistent with other studies?
• Moves broader and broader: What does this
tell us about actual life?
• Makes note of limitations
• Future directions
26. Discussion subsections
• Limitations
• flaws in design, alternative explanations of effect,
inconsistency with other studies, conditions that should
have been explored
• Future Directions
• Things that can remedy the limitations, and extensions
of the work
• Consider generalizability
• To other settings
• To other times (and over longer periods of time)
• To other kinds of people
28. Reading: Skimming
• Skimming is your friend
• Especially if you’re looking for relevant articles
• Title, abstract
• Run through Intro quickly, focus on last few paragraphs
• See if what they’re specifically doing is relevant
• Gloss over Methods quickly
• Scan Results and Discussion to see what they found
29. Reading: Intro
• Review the whole intro to see what research
tradition they are building on
• Note important theories they reference
• Highlight articles that are referenced in the Intro, and
look them up later
• Ask yourself if you can understand why they decided
to do they study, given the points they’ve laid out.
30. Reading: Methods
• Methods is very important if you’re doing a deep reading.
• Make note of the materials they are borrowing
• And that they created
See if you can understand the procedure: what did participants
do? What did they experience?
31. Reading: Results and
Methods
• If by the end of the Methods, you can’t explain exactly what the
researchers did (and what comparisons/hypotheses they’re about to be
testing) you need to go back.
• Of course, it’s not necessarily your fault if something makes no sense
(that whole pretentious writing thing again)
32. Reading: Results
• Were hypotheses supported?
• Does everything follow logically from Intro? Are they
testing what you thought they’d be?
• If you were studying this, what would you control for? Did
they? Does anything seem missing?
• Did any statistical tests not work? How do they explain it?
• Are there any numbers you’d like to see that are missing?
33. Discussion
• Slap on your B.S. detection goggles
• Is everything consistent with the intro?
• Did they rule out possible alternate explanations?
• Always ask yourself: What is the reason? What is the
mechanism?
• Is the relationship causal? Or is it just an association? Does
the author acknowledge this?
• Consider what conditions might moderate the effect or
make it disappear.
• If you wanted to counter this study/disprove it, what could
you do? (Note: You should always be “testing to disprove”)
34. Discussion
• What’s another angle to examine this question from?
• Consider replication across different settings, places, tasks,
measures, people, on a different time frame, etc. Would this result
always hold?
• What about this theory makes sense? What doesn’t?
• Always be on the lookout for new connections– maybe a totally
different literature can inform this one!
• Political psychology and Self research: If you’re patriotic, does flag
burning make you more upset because you associate the flag with
yourself, or see it as an extension of yourself?