This module takes a look at the Method section of research articles, and how good writers construct them.

1. The Method Section
Prof. Dr. Ron Martinez
PRPPG7000 - Academic Writing in English

2. Syllabus outline
• 28/08 - Introduction
• 04/09 - IMRaD, Most common errors,
electronic tools
• 11/09 - Strategic planning for your article:
CARS and other approaches
• 18/09 - Title, Abstract e Introduction
• 25/09 - Writing your Introduction
• 02/10 - Coherence, cohesion and clarity, and
use of authorial voice
• 09/10 - (Introduction due) The Method
section
• 16/10- The (Results and) Discussion section
• 23/10 - (Introduction peer feedback due)
Discussing and Concluding
• 30/10 - Writing (no class)
• 06/11 - Students exchange articles (no class)
• 13/11 - (peer feedback due) Special guest
speaker
• 20/11 - Plagiarism, the submission process

4. YOUR MIDTERM ASSIGNMENT
First: Go to PEERGRADE
www.peergrade.io/join
CLASS CODE:
5AJQZQ

5. IMPORTANT:
1. Focus is on points already covered in class.
2. Can be any length, but very long Introductions (over
1,000 words) are discouraged.
3. Can be in English or Portuguese - or both.
4. Must submit through peergrade.io by October 9
(23:59).
5. On October 10, you will receive 2 introductions written
by other students. Your impressions of these
introductions are due October 23. You will not see your
feedback until you have given feedback on others’
introductions.

7. DISCUSSION
INTRODUCTION
METHOD
RESULT
S
I.M.R.aD.

8. The Method section
• Why is it important?
• What makes a good Method section?
• How does it connect to the Introduction?

10. Look at the following (imaginary) Method section.
Is it good? Why (not)?

11. 2. Method
Men (n=4) were chosen for the experiment. After playing
basketball, each man applied two different deodorants, one
on each armpit. A young woman was recruited to judge
how pleasing the smell of each deodorant was. The female
judge smelled each armpit, each time noting her
impressions. Her final analysis was then given, based on
the notes taken.

12. Imagine you are a reviewer:
1. What questions about the method need
answers?
2. Talk with a classmate and submit your
questions on GoFormative.

13. DISCUSSION
INTRODUCTION
METHOD
RESULT
S
I.M.R.aD.

14. The Method section
• Why is it important?
• What makes a good Method section?
• How does it connect to the Introduction?

15. The Naysayer

16. Not every article has a
Method section, but...

17. The Naysayer
The ability to
defend your
method is relevant
to everyone.

19. Studies on why articles get rejected
• Belcher, D. D. (2007). Seeking acceptance in an English-only
research world. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(1), 1-22.
• Bordage, G. (2001). Reasons reviewers reject and accept
manuscripts: the strengths and weaknesses in medical education
reports. Academic Medicine, 76(9), 889-896.
• Pierson, D. J. (2004). The top 10 reasons why manuscripts are not
accepted for publication. Respiratory care, 49(10), 1246-1252.
• Sullivan, E. J. (2002). Top 10 reasons a manuscript is
rejected. Journal of Professional Nursing, 18(1), 1-2.
• McKercher, B., Law, R., Weber, K., Song, H., & Hsu, C. (2007).
Why referees reject manuscripts. Journal of Hospitality &
Tourism Research, 31(4), 455-470.

20. Belcher (2007)

21. Belcher (2007)

22. Belcher (2007)

23. • Belcher, D. D. (2007). Seeking acceptance in an English-only
research world. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(1), 1-22.
• Bordage, G. (2001). Reasons reviewers reject and accept
manuscripts: the strengths and weaknesses in medical education
reports. Academic Medicine, 76(9), 889-896.
• Pierson, D. J. (2004). The top 10 reasons why manuscripts are not
accepted for publication. Respiratory care, 49(10), 1246-1252.
• Sullivan, E. J. (2002). Top 10 reasons a manuscript is
rejected. Journal of Professional Nursing, 18(1), 1-2.
• McKercher, B., Law, R., Weber, K., Song, H., & Hsu, C. (2007).
Why referees reject manuscripts. Journal of Hospitality &
Tourism Research, 31(4), 455-470.
Studies on why articles get rejected

24. Sullivan (2002)
1. Manuscript sent to wrong jornal
2. Content does not provide new information
3. Information is too old or out of date
4. Topic is too narrow
5. Important contributions to topic are missing
6. Author has relied too heavily on the literature
7. Manuscript was a class paper or speech
8. Too little information about method, or method includes
serious flaws
9. Paper does not make a point
10. Poor writing

25. • Belcher, D. D. (2007). Seeking acceptance in an English-only
research world. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(1), 1-22.
• Bordage, G. (2001). Reasons reviewers reject and accept
manuscripts: the strengths and weaknesses in medical education
reports. Academic Medicine, 76(9), 889-896.
• Pierson, D. J. (2004). The top 10 reasons why manuscripts are not
accepted for publication. Respiratory care, 49(10), 1246-1252.
• Sullivan, E. J. (2002). Top 10 reasons a manuscript is
rejected. Journal of Professional Nursing, 18(1), 1-2.
• McKercher, B., Law, R., Weber, K., Song, H., & Hsu, C. (2007).
Why referees reject manuscripts. Journal of Hospitality &
Tourism Research, 31(4), 455-470.
Studies on why articles get rejected

26. Pierson (2012)

27. Pierson (2012)

28. • Belcher, D. D. (2007). Seeking acceptance in an English-only
research world. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(1), 1-22.
• Bordage, G. (2001). Reasons reviewers reject and accept
manuscripts: the strengths and weaknesses in medical education
reports. Academic Medicine, 76(9), 889-896.
• Pierson, D. J. (2004). The top 10 reasons why manuscripts are not
accepted for publication. Respiratory care, 49(10), 1246-1252.
• Sullivan, E. J. (2002). Top 10 reasons a manuscript is
rejected. Journal of Professional Nursing, 18(1), 1-2.
• McKercher, B., Law, R., Weber, K., Song, H., & Hsu, C. (2007).
Why referees reject manuscripts. Journal of Hospitality &
Tourism Research, 31(4), 455-470.

29. McKercher et al. (2007)

30. McKercher et al. (2007)

31. Main reasons articles get rejected
Belcher (2007) Bordage (2001) Sullivan (2002) McKercher
(2007)
Wrong journal X ✓ ✓ ✓
Faulty method ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Lack of transparency X ✓ ✓ ✓
Problems with statistics X ✓ ✓ ✓
Poor discussion ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Improper formatting X ✓ X ✓
Writing difficult to follow ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Literature review ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Nothing new ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Contribution not clear ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Poor English X X X X

32. A manuscript I recently rejected...

36. The Method section
• Why is it important?
• What makes a good Method section?
• How does it connect to the Introduction?

37. DISCUSSION
INTRODUCTION
METHOD
RESULT
S
I.M.R.aD.

38. DISCUSSION
INTRODUCTION
METHOD
RESULT
S
I.M.R.aD.

42. Read the Introduction (online)
(3rd paragraph) What non-genetic factors can
influence body odor?

50. Now read the Method section
Can you find elements that were raised in the
Introduction section?

51. “Mentrual cycle”, “mood” and “diet”

52. “Mentrual cycle”, “mood” and “diet”

53. DISCUSSION
INTRODUCTION
METHOD
RESULT
S
I.M.R.aD.

54. DISCUSSION
INTRODUCTION
METHOD
RESULT
S
I.M.R.aD.

57. 2. Method
Men (n=4) were chosen for the experiment. After playing
basketball, each man applied two different deodorants, one
on each armpit. A young woman was recruited to judge
how pleasing the smell of each deodorant was. The female
judge smelled each armpit, each time noting her
impressions. Her final analysis was then given, based on
the notes taken.

58. Pierson (2012)

59. And hearing the Naysayer...
“But how do you know participants followed instructions?”

60. And hearing the Naysayer...
“But how do you know participants followed instructions?”
“But what about odor contamination from outside smells?”

61. And hearing the Naysayer...
“But how do you know participants followed instructions?”
“But what about odor contamination from outside smells?”
“But how fresh were the smells?”

62. And hearing the Naysayer...
“But how do you know participants followed instructions?”
“But what about odor contamination from outside smells?”
“But how fresh were the smells?”
“But what about the effects of repeated testing?”

64. “But how do you
know participants
followed
instructions?”

65. “But how do you
know participants
followed
instructions?”

66. But what about odor
contamination from
outside smells?

67. But what about odor
contamination from
outside smells?

68. “But how fresh were
the smells?”

69. “But how fresh were
the smells?”

70. “But what about the
effects of repeated
testing?”

71. “But what about the
effects of repeated
testing?”

72. Don’t just say “what” you did, also say “why”
What many people write
We carefully examined the diet
diaries.

73. Don’t just say “what” you did, also say “why”
What many people write
We carefully examined the diet
diaries.
Better
To check the odor donors’
conformity with the instructions,
we carefully examined the diet
diaries.

74. Don’t just say “what” you did, also say “why”
What many people write
We carefully examined the diet
diaries.
The donors were asked to wear
new white 100% cotton T-shirts.
Better
To check the odor donors’
conformity with the instructions,
we carefully examined the diet
diaries.

75. Don’t just say “what” you did, also say “why”
What many people write
We carefully examined the diet
diaries.
The donors were asked to wear
new white 100% cotton T-shirts.
Better
To check the odor donors’
conformity with the instructions,
we carefully examined the diet
diaries.
To avoid odor contamination
from odor donors’ clothes or
background color, the donors
were asked to wear new white
100% cotton T-shirts.

76. DISCUSSION
INTRODUCTION
METHOD
RESULT
S
I.M.R.aD.

77. DISCUSSION
INTRODUCTION
METHOD
RESULT
S
WHY

78. DISCUSSION
INTRODUCTION
METHOD
RESULT
S
WHY
HOW

79. DISCUSSION
INTRODUCTION
METHOD
RESULT
S
WHY
HOW
WHAT

80. DISCUSSION
INTRODUCTION
METHOD
RESULT
S
WHY
HOW
WHAT
SO WHAT?

83. YOUR MIDTERM ASSIGNMENT
First: Go to PEERGRADE
www.peergrade.io/join
CLASS CODE:
5AJQZQ

84. IMPORTANT:
1. Focus is on points already covered in class.
2. Can be any length, but very long Introductions (over
1,000 words) are discouraged.
3. Can be in English or Portuguese - or both.
4. Must submit through peergrade.io by October 9
(23:59).
5. On October 10, you will receive 2 introductions written
by other students. Your impressions of these
introductions are due October 23. You will not see your
feedback until you have given feedback on others’
introductions.

86. Homework
1. Download one of the selected articles from our webpage
(“Discussion 1”, “Discussion 2”, “Discussion 3” etc.). Read only the
Discussion section of the article you choose.
2. In the Discussion section, can you identify:
a. A. the author(s) admitting a limitation?
b. B. the author(s) talking about practical implication(s)?
c. C. the author(s) comparing the results to those of other authors?
3. Revisit the Hanauer & Englander article (“Quantifying the
Burden…”) and identify the same points (A, B, C) above.

87. www.drronmartinez.com