رحلة البحث العلمى: أدواته وأخلاقياته

‫العلمى‬ ‫البحث‬ ‫رحلة‬
‫وأخالقياته‬ ‫أدواته‬
‫الدكتور‬ ‫األستاذ‬
‫حسنين‬ ‫عطيفى‬ ‫ابوالعال‬
‫ورئيس‬ ‫مؤسس‬
‫العلمية‬ ‫المدرسة‬
‫المصرية‬ ‫البحثية‬
‫بكلية‬ ‫واالستاذ‬
‫والذكاء‬ ‫الحاسبات‬
‫االصطناعى‬–
‫القاهرة‬ ‫جامعة‬-
‫مجلس‬ ‫ومقرر‬
‫االتصاالت‬
‫وتكنولوجيا‬
‫المعلومات‬–
‫أكاديمية‬‫البحث‬
‫العلمى‬
‫الهندسة‬ ‫بكلية‬ ‫بحثية‬ ‫علمية‬ ‫رحلة‬–‫المنصورة‬ ‫جامعة‬10‫ديسمبر‬2019

2
•‫تعالى‬ ‫هللا‬ ‫قال‬:
(ِ‫ذ‬‫ه‬‫ل‬‫ا‬َ‫و‬ ْ‫م‬ُ‫ك‬‫ن‬ِ‫م‬ ‫وا‬ُ‫ن‬َ‫م‬‫آ‬ َ‫ين‬ِ‫ذ‬‫ه‬‫ل‬‫ا‬ ُ ‫ه‬‫اَّلل‬ ِ‫ع‬َ‫ف‬ْ‫ر‬َ‫ي‬ُ ‫ه‬‫اَّلل‬َ‫و‬ ٍ‫ت‬‫ا‬َ‫ج‬َ‫َر‬‫د‬ َ‫م‬ْ‫ل‬ِ‫ع‬ْ‫ل‬‫ا‬ ‫وا‬ُ‫ت‬‫و‬ُ‫أ‬ َ‫ين‬‫ا‬َ‫م‬ِ‫ب‬
‫ير‬ِ‫ب‬َ‫خ‬ َ‫ون‬ُ‫ل‬َ‫م‬ْ‫ع‬َ‫ت‬)
‫للعلم‬‫مكانة‬‫مرموقة‬‫في‬‫اإلسالم‬‫بدليل‬‫أن‬‫أول‬‫آية‬‫نزلت‬‫على‬‫رس‬‫ول‬
‫هللا‬‫صلى‬‫هللا‬‫عليه‬‫وسلم‬‫كانت‬‫تحث‬‫على‬‫القراءة‬‫وهي‬‫بوابة‬‫ال‬‫علم‬
‫الفسيح‬.‫كما‬‫أقسم‬‫سبحانه‬‫وتعالى‬‫بالقلم‬,‫وهو‬‫الشك‬‫أداة‬‫من‬‫أدوات‬
‫تحصيل‬‫العلم‬,‫وال‬‫يقسم‬‫هللا‬‫تعالى‬‫بشيء‬‫إال‬‫لعظمته‬‫وعلو‬‫ش‬‫أنه‬

‫العلمى‬ ‫البحث‬
‫أحــد‬ ‫العلمــي‬ ‫البحــث‬ ‫يعتبــر‬
‫تــن‬ ‫التــي‬ ‫الرئيســية‬ ‫األركــان‬‫هض‬
‫المجاالت‬ ‫أحــد‬ ‫و‬ ‫األمــم‬ ‫عليهــا‬
‫مـن‬ ‫الـدول‬ ‫فيهـا‬ ‫تتنـافس‬ ‫التي‬‫أجـل‬
‫ال‬ ‫بالمسـتوي‬ ‫االرتقـاء‬ ‫تحقيـق‬‫ثقـافي‬
‫ك‬ ‫لشعوبها‬ ‫والرخاء‬ ‫والتكنولوجي‬‫ما‬
‫اقتصادي‬ ‫نمو‬ ‫تحقق‬ ‫أن‬ ‫يمكن‬ ‫أنها‬‫إذا‬ ‫ا‬
‫وتوظيفها‬ ‫استخدامها‬ ‫إستحسـن‬

‫العلمى‬ ‫البحث‬ ‫مؤشرات‬

‫عدد‬ ‫فى‬ ‫االول‬ ‫المركز‬ ‫تحتل‬ ‫مصر‬
‫علمائها‬
‫في‬ ‫األول‬ ‫المركز‬ ‫تحتل‬ ‫أنها‬ ‫رغم‬ ‫مصر‬ ‫أن‬
‫أن‬ ‫إال‬ ،‫العالم‬ ‫مستوى‬ ‫على‬ ‫العلماء‬ ‫عدد‬
‫بعض‬ ‫يعاني‬ ‫مصر‬ ‫في‬ ‫العلمي‬ ‫البحث‬ ‫مجال‬
‫دوره‬ ‫من‬ ‫تحد‬ ‫التي‬ ‫والعقبات‬ ‫المشاكل‬
‫م‬ ،‫المتوقعة‬ ‫نتائجه‬ ‫تحقيق‬ ‫دون‬ ‫وتعوق‬‫قدرا‬
‫بنحو‬ ‫المصريين‬ ‫العلماء‬ ‫أعداده‬86‫ألفا‬
‫عالما‬.
‫وتناول‬‫حقوقى‬ ‫التقرير‬‫ا‬ ‫يواجهها‬ ‫التي‬ ‫التحديات‬‫لبحث‬
‫هي‬ ،‫أنواع‬ ‫أربعة‬ ‫إلى‬ ‫وصنفهم‬ ،‫مصر‬ ‫في‬ ‫العلمي‬:
«‫تقل‬ ‫منها‬ ،‫نفسه‬ ‫العلمي‬ ‫بالبحث‬ ‫خاصة‬ ‫مشكالت‬‫يل‬
‫اإل‬ ‫والفساد‬ ‫التمويل‬ ‫وقصور‬ ،‫العلمي‬ ‫البحث‬ ‫قيمة‬،‫داري‬
‫مثل‬ ،‫العلمي‬ ‫المنهج‬ ‫ومشكالت‬‫غياب‬‫في‬ ‫الدقة‬
‫للتطبيق‬ ‫األبحاث‬ ‫نتائج‬ ‫قابلية‬ ‫وعدم‬ ،‫التوثيق‬،‫العملي‬
‫البيروقراطي‬ ‫مثل‬ ،‫بالواقع‬ ‫محيطة‬ ‫مشكالت‬ ‫وأيضا‬‫ة‬
،‫اإلجراءات‬ ‫وصعوبة‬ ،‫اإلدارية‬‫وأخيرا‬‫مشكالت‬
‫وسياسات‬ ‫خطط‬ ‫غياب‬ ‫مثل‬ ،‫المجتمع‬ ‫بحركة‬ ‫مرتبطة‬
،‫له‬ ‫المخصص‬ ‫التمويل‬ ‫وضعف‬ ،‫التربوي‬ ‫البحث‬
‫البحثية‬ ‫المدارس‬ ‫غياب‬ ‫إلى‬ ‫باإلضافة‬‫واأل‬ ‫والنماذج‬‫طر‬
‫التربوية‬».
‫أفكـار‬ ‫لـديهم‬ ‫ممـن‬ ‫الطمـوح‬ ‫الشـباب‬ ‫طاقات‬ ‫استغالل‬ ‫عدم‬
‫ال‬ ‫يشـــهدها‬ ‫بحثيـــة‬ ‫مشـــكالت‬ ‫معالجــة‬ ‫فـي‬ ،‫مسـتحدثة‬‫قـــرن‬
‫ب‬ ‫الواقعيـة‬ ‫المشـكالت‬ ‫اقتحـــام‬ ‫مـــن‬ ‫والخشـــية‬ ،‫الجديـــد‬‫فكـر‬
‫الحقيقي‬ ‫األسـباب‬ ‫لتشـخيص‬ ،‫جـزئ‬ ‫قـوى‬ ‫حـر‬ ‫بحثـي‬‫لهذه‬ ‫ـة‬
‫لها‬ ‫المناسب‬ ‫العالج‬ ‫وتحديد‬ ‫المشكالت‬.

Agenda
Scientific
Research
Reading
Scientific
Research
paper
Dealing with
rejection
Submission
package
MisconductSRGE
Writing
Scientific
papers
Highly
Visible S &
R
Error in
Publications

Part (1) Science
- Scientific Research
- Researcher and Scientists!
- A Scientist’s Value Equation
- Stage 1 Conducting Research - 15 Characteristics of a good statement of the problem for research
-- Research Problem
- The purpose of a problem statement
- What Makes a Good Research Statement?
- Eight Habits of a Highly Productive Researcher
- Storing and Preserving Your Scientific Data

Scientific research
A researcher is the
one who conducts this
and has a good
background in science
with a good written
and communication
skills
(1) Define
research
subject
(2) Gather
information,
techniques,
studies from
various
literatures
(3) Carries
out
experiments
(4) Analyze
& interpret
research
results
(5) Prepare
research
reports
(6) Takes part
in seminars
and
workshops
Research conducted for the
purpose of contributing towards
science by the systematic
collection, interpretation and
evaluation of data and that, too,
in a planned manner is called
scientific research.

Scientist & Researchers
• A scientist is highly specialized
professional who has a significant
knowledge and expertise in one or
many disciplines.
• A scientist is a researcher but not
vice-versa
• Work Smart (not time…)
"Scientist" is used when referring specifically to a person who is an expert in a science, especially
physical or natural sciences. "Scholar" is more broad, and can be used generally for anyone who has
profound knowledge of a particular subject. Scholar" isn't used for sciences (chemistry, geography), but
can be used for History, Language, etc
The main difference between scientist and researcher is that researcher undertakes research in
a particular area in search of information whereas scientist believes in the results of his
experiment which opens up new arena (‫)ميدان‬ of knowledge.

A scientist’s value equation
The value of a person’s work =
benefits to others x reproducibility
x efficiency
As a scientist, you have many experiments to run, papers to read, and abstracts
and grants to write. As your to-do list gets longer, your default response may be
to work harder—even on evenings and weekends—to get it all done. But
working more doesn't mean bringing more value through your work.
Here are four common ways scientists lose efficiency:
(1) Repeating experiments because they were not properly done the
first time (e.g. missing controls)
(2) Running out of a critical reagent and having to wait for new
reagents to arrive
(3) Performing unnecessarily long procedures and techniques
(4) Using outdated or inefficient technologies

Research Problem
A research problem is a
statement about an area of
concern, a condition to be
improved, a difficulty to be
eliminated, or a troubling question
that exists in scholarly literature, in
theory, or in practice that points to
the need for meaningful
understanding and deliberate
investigation.
In some social science disciplines
the research problem is typically
posed in the form of a question. A
research problem does not state
how to do something, offer a vague
or broad proposition, or present a
value question.
Identification and formulation of a research problem is
the first step of the research process.
It is the most challenging & difficult phase of the research
process.
Selection of a research problem depends on several factors such
as researcher’s knowledge, skills, interest, expertise, motivation
& creativity with respect to the subject chosen.
A good research studies needs a lots of time for selection of
research problem.
Initially every researcher faces a predicament of identifying,
selecting and formulating a good research problem.

The purpose of a
problem statement
Introduce the reader to the
importance of the topic being
studied. The reader is oriented
to the significance of the study
and the research questions or
hypotheses to follow.
Places the problem into a
particular context that defines
the parameters of what is to be
investigated.
Provides the framework for
reporting the results and
indicates what is probably
necessary to conduct the study
and explain how the findings will
present this information.
Why is it important?
It explains how the proposed study
would contribute to the existing
research in the field and helps you
write a great research proposal.
While conducting research, it will
help you stay focused.

The characteristics of a good statement of the
problem for research
1. Covers all aspects of the research
2. Describes the current situation in the
field/topic in question
3. Describes the ideal situation or desired goal
of your research
4. Proposes how your work will improve the
current situation
5. Addresses the research gap in the
field/on the topic
6. Mentions the significant contributions your
research will make to the field
7. Highlights the benefits of your study
8. Points out the scope for further research
9. is based within the theoretical and
conceptual frameworks that exist in the field
10. Ensures that the problem is ethically
approachable
11. Adopts a realistic approach towards aspects
such as data gathering, budget constraints,
timeframe, etc.
12. Uses simple language that non-academics
can understand as well
13. Excludes unnecessary jargon
14. Does not contain any sweeping statements
15. Is not elaborate and lengthy but concise and
to-the-point

What Makes a Good Research Statement?
• A good problem statement begins by introducing
the broad area in which your research is centered
and then gradually leads the reader to the more
narrow questions you are posing. The statement
need not be lengthy but a good research problem
should incorporate the following features:
– Compelling topic
Simple curiosity (‫االستطالع‬ ‫ب‬ُ‫ح‬)is not a good enough
reason to pursue a research study. The problem that
you choose to explore must be important to you and to
a larger community you share. The problem chosen
must be one that motivates you to address it. ‫أن‬ ‫يجب‬
‫معالجتها‬ ‫على‬ ‫تحفزك‬ ‫التي‬ ‫هي‬ ‫المختارة‬ ‫المشكلة‬ ‫تكون‬.
– Supports multiple perspectives
The problem most be phrased in a way that avoids
dichotomies and instead supports the generation and
exploration of multiple perspectives. A general rule of
thumb is that a good research problem is one that
would generate a variety of viewpoints from a
composite audience made up of reasonable people.
‫متعددة‬ ‫نظر‬ ‫وجهات‬ ‫واستكشاف‬ ‫توليد‬ ‫تدعم‬
– Researchable
It seems a bit obvious, but you don't want to find
yourself in the midst of investigating a
complex research project and realize that you don't
have much to draw on for your research. Choose
research problems that can be supported by the
resources available to you.
•
‫البحث‬ ‫المشكالت‬ ‫اختر‬‫ية‬
‫دعمها‬ ‫يمكن‬ ‫التي‬
‫لك‬ ‫المتاحة‬ ‫بالموارد‬
‫توليد‬ ‫تدعم‬
‫واستكشاف‬
‫نظر‬ ‫وجهات‬
‫متعددة‬
‫تكون‬ ‫أن‬ ‫يجب‬
‫المخت‬ ‫المشكلة‬‫ارة‬
‫تحفز‬ ‫التي‬ ‫هي‬‫ك‬
‫معالجتها‬ ‫على‬.
NOTE: Do not confuse a research problem with
a research topic. A topic is something to read and
obtain information about whereas a problem is
something to solve or framed as a question that
must be answered.

Eight Habits of a Highly
Productive Researcher
(1) Start Early (2) Plan Ahead
(3) Start with the Task You Do Not Want to Do
(4) Finish What You Start
(5) Set Goals and Reward Yourself
(6) Break Bad Habits
(7) Limit Distractions
(8) Take Care of Yourself
(8) Many junior researchers
fall into the trap of working
harder and longer hours at
the cost of their personal
well-being.
(7) Distractions are everywhere:
your smart phone, email
notifications or even the chatter
of loud coworkers. Productive
researchers know to eliminate
these distractions.
(5) Working towards a goal
can keep you motivated and
productive.
(3) Start with the most
difficult tasks instead of
putting them off until
the end of the day
(1) Getting in the
habit of starting
right away may
help you tackle
tasks more
efficiently.
(2) Making a to-do list
on a regular basis is
one of the most
effective ways to
increase your
productivity in the lab.
Take a few minutes at
the end of each week
to plan for the
following week, and
identify the highest
priority tasks.

Storing and Preserving
Your Scientific Data
Use a
Shared
Online
Drive
Back Up
Your Data
in Multiple
Locations
Develop a
Systematic
Electronic
Filing
System
In addition to protecting
against physical data
corruption, cloud and online
storage can be employed
when storing data that
needs to be accessed by
several people
Whether you’re storing
electronic documents
on a personal drive or
a shared drive, it is
important to develop a
structured filing
system that’s intuitive
and easy to adopt.
Whichever
storage
medium you
choose, there
is always a
chance that
your data will
become
corrupted on
your local hard
drive.

‫مصر‬ ‫فى‬ ‫البحثى‬ ‫المجال‬ ‫على‬ ‫الفردية‬ ‫النزعة‬
•‫الفرديــة‬ ‫النزعــة‬ ‫ســيطرة‬
‫وعــد‬ ،‫البحثــي‬ ‫المجــال‬ ‫علــى‬‫م‬
‫مؤسســات‬ ‫معظــم‬ ‫اهتمــام‬
‫ال‬ ‫بفكــرة‬ ‫العــالي‬ ‫التعلــيم‬‫بحــث‬
‫فيــ‬ ‫يشــارك‬ ‫الــذي‬ ‫الجمــاعي‬‫ه‬
‫البـاحثي‬ ‫مـن‬ ‫متكامـل‬ ‫فريــق‬،‫ن‬
‫أعضـاء‬ ‫مسـتوى‬ ‫علـى‬ ‫سـواء‬
‫علـى‬ ‫أو‬ ،‫التـدريس‬ ‫هيئـة‬
‫المراحل‬ ‫في‬ ‫الطالب‬ ‫مستوى‬
‫المختلفة‬ ‫التعليمية‬.
‫البحثية‬ ‫المدارس‬ ‫غياب‬

Part (II) Working in
team and successful
research group

Scientific Research Group in Egypt

>> 100 papers in academic year (2019)
Samples

>50 books published in prestigious publishers

‫بالبيئة‬ ‫مرتبطة‬ ‫مشاريع‬

‫صورة‬ ‫حكاية‬
(‫االورمان‬ ‫حديقة‬)

‫المجتمع‬ ‫خدمة‬

SRGE members Awards
‫التشجيعية‬ ‫الدواة‬ ‫جائزة‬2018‫التشجيعية‬ ‫الدواة‬ ‫جائزة‬2019 ‫العربية‬ ‫الدول‬ ‫منظمة‬ ‫جائزة‬
‫والثقافة‬ ‫للعلوم‬(‫الكسو‬2015)
‫البحث‬ ‫مجالس‬ ‫اتحاد‬ ‫جائزة‬
‫االعربية‬ ‫العلمى‬2019
‫العلمى‬ ‫البحث‬ ‫مجالس‬ ‫اتحاد‬ ‫جائزة‬
‫االعربية‬2019

‫عالمية‬ ‫جوائز‬
‫فقط‬ ‫سنوات‬ ‫خمس‬ ‫أخر‬
++‫اإلنسانية‬ ‫للعلوم‬ ‫الكويت‬ ‫جائزة‬–‫للتفوق‬ ‫الدولة‬ ‫جائزة‬+‫للتفوق‬ ‫القاهرة‬ ‫جامعة‬ ‫جائزة‬–‫والتكنولوجيا‬ ‫للعلوم‬ ‫العلمى‬ ‫البحث‬ ‫أكاديمية‬ ‫جائزة‬(‫حلوان‬ ‫مرصد‬)

Part (3) Anatomy and writing
of a scientific paper

Structure and purpose of each section

• Apply your knowledge on the structure and relevance of
each section to interpret and evaluate the paper :
- Read the results section in detail, including the figures and tables, to
interpret what the results indicate in terms of answering the research
questions/ aims proposed in the introduction. Draw conclusion from
these results. (As beginners in studying the sciences, the discussion/
conclusion sections will be helpful to interpret the results of the paper).
- Read the discussion with purpose to get an understanding of the
authors’ interpretation of their results in the context of other scientific
literature. There may also be information about limitations of the
researchers’ work and directions for further research. A conclusion
should be provided in terms of an interpretation of the key findings in
the context of the research aims/ question (this may be in a separate
section labelled ‘conclusion’).
Identify an approach to reading a
scientific paper

Identify an approach to reading a
scientific paper
• Screen the title to see if the
paper is relevant for your
purpose. If uncertain check the
abstract for more detail to
determine if the paper is
relevant.
• Once you have determined the
paper is likely to be relevant,
read the abstract in detail to
get an idea of the key findings
and how the research was
approached.
• Apply your knowledge on the structure and relevance of
each section to interpret and evaluate the paper :
- Read through the introduction to get an understanding of
what is known in the area and the reason or purpose of
the research (or paper). Ask yourself if the purpose is
clear and justified from the background information
provided in the introduction?
- Read the methods section in detail to understand and
critically evaluate the design of the study. Ask yourself:
is the study well designed?; have the researchers tried to
eliminate things that may influence the results other than
the variables of interest (i.e. minimised sources of bias)?;
are the results likely to be reliable and can they be
reproduced?
Now that you have an understanding of how scientific papers are
structured and the content and relevance of each section, the following
is to help to identify an approach to reading a scientific paper.

What to write
first?
Although, in published
form, the Title comes first
and the Abstract second,
they are nearly always the
last to be written, or at least
the last items to be
finalized.
The body of the paper is tackled first.

Checklist 1 - Introduction The Introduction section should
set the context for your study and research problem.
1. Have you explained how the research makes an
important contribution to the field?
2. Have you provided a brief overview of
previously published works on the topic?
3. Have you stated your research question
clearly?
4. Have you given a brief explanation about why
it is important to have your research question
answered?
5. Have you clearly stated the scope of your
study? If there were any limitations to the
study, have you mentioned them?
6. Have you described the study design clearly
and concisely?

Checklist 2 - Methods The Methods section should provide a
detailed explanation of how you conducted your research and the
materials you used in the process.
• Have you described the study design in detail,
including the hypotheses, your rationale and
assumptions, and variables used?
• Have you clearly stated the controls set for your
study and defined the control group(s) against which
your data were compared?
• Have you spoken about the tests carried out,
number of replications, parameters measured, and
in what form the data has been collected?
• Have you described the steps of your experimental
procedure concisely, in the chronological order in
which they occurred?
• Have you mentioned what methods you used to
analyze the collected data and which statistical tests
were carried out?
• Have you stated how you addressed the ethical
concerns (if any) raised by your study?
•
•

Checklist 3 - Results The Results section should present
your research findings in detail along with all the data.
• Have you been concise, presenting mainly your
converted data and providing only as much raw data as
is required for clarity?
• Have you stated the important results first?
• Have you stated all other results in a chronological
‫زمنى‬ ‫ترتيب‬order?
• Have you organized the text into smaller units using
subheadings?
• Have you included even the negative results?
• Have you used the correct units?
• Have you placed and numbered the tables and figures
as indicated in the journal's Instructions to Authors
section?
• Have you numbered tables separately from figures?
• Have you provided a precise legend for each table and
figure?
• Have you confirmed that you have not presented the
same data both in a table and in a figure?
• Have you divided very large tables into multiple
tables?
•
Do the numbers in your tables and
figures add up correctly and correspond
to the text?
Have you considered whether you want
the illustrations in your paper to be in
color or black and-white?

Checklist 4 - Discussion and Conclusion The Discussion and
Conclusion section should interpret the findings and discuss the impact
that your research may have on the field of study.
• Have you stated the important findings and your
interpretation of them?
• Have you discussed the implications of the results attained?
• Have you mentioned the limitations and strengths of your
study?
• Do your statements and arguments flow logically?
• Have you used simple, lucid statements?
• Have you made sure that your results are not over
generalized?
• Have you ensured that the findings are not inflated?
• Have you checked the studies you have cited? You should
not cite all previous studies.
• Have you included any tangential or irrelevant issues? If yes,
then omit them. ‫صلة‬ ‫ذات‬ ‫غير‬
• ‫دراستك‬ ‫ارتباط‬ ‫كيفية‬ ‫عن‬ ‫التحدث‬ ‫هو‬ ‫هدفك‬ ‫يكون‬ ‫أن‬ ‫يجب‬ ‫اخرى؟‬ ‫دراسات‬ ‫انتقدت‬ ‫هل‬
‫األخرى‬ ‫الدراسات‬ ‫مع‬ ‫المقارنة‬ ‫أو‬ ‫بالعالقة‬.‫مع‬ ‫خطأ‬ ‫على‬ ‫العثور‬ ‫أو‬ ‫انتقاد‬ ‫يمكنك‬ ‫ال‬
‫األخرى‬ ‫الدراسات‬.‫والغرض‬ ‫البحث‬ ‫بسؤال‬ ‫مباشرة‬ ‫مرتبط‬ ‫االستنتاج‬ ‫أن‬ ‫من‬ ‫تأكدت‬ ‫هل‬
‫الدراسة؟‬ ‫من‬ ‫المعلن‬

Checklist 5 – Title The Title of a research paper should
briefly convey what the study is about and should draw
readers to your paper
• Is your title brief? Check your journal's
requirements for word length.
• Does it convey exactly what your
paper is about?
• If you've conducted a specific type of
experiment or analysis does your title
reflect it?
• Does it include keywords from your
paper?
• Have you used abbreviations or
jargon in the title? You shouldn't!

Checklist 6 – Abstract The Abstract should offer a preview of your
research, highlight key points, and help readers decide whether to
read the full paper.
• Did you write your Abstract before writing the whole paper?
You shouldn't! The Abstract should be the last part you write.
• Have you mentioned the major objectives/hypotheses and
conclusions from the Introduction and Conclusion sections?
• Have you mentioned key sentences and phrases from your
Methods section?
• Have you identified the major findings from your Results
section?
• Have you arranged the sentences and phrases selected from
all sections together into a single paragraph in the following
sequence: Introduction, Methods, Results, and Conclusions?
• Have you made sure that this paragraph does not contain new
information that is not present
• in the paper?
• Does your Abstract contain undefined abbreviations or group
names? It shouldn't!
• Have you made sure that you haven't discussed previous
literature or added reference citations in your Abstract?
•
Have you asked a
colleague to review your
Abstract and check if the
purpose, aim, methods,
and conclusions of the
study are clearly stated?
Does the final abstract
meet your target journal's
guidelines and
requirements?

Cited
References
locating current research based on earlier research, patents, reports, etc.
finding how many times and where a publication is being cited
identifying who is referencing a particular paper
exploring how a particular research topic is being used to support other research
analyzing the impact of a publication on other research in the field
tracking the history of a research idea
tracking the research of a colleague, or keeping track of your own research

Never read a paper
from start to finish
Read the title first,
then the abstract,
then the last paragraph of the
Introduction,
then the first paragraph of the
Discussion,
look at the figures and tables.

Part (4) Selecting potential
right journal

Selecting right journal
Finding potional right
journal
Look at your
reference list
Check where
your supervisor
publish
Short listing
the right
journal
10 Tips

What topics/research areas
does the journal publish in?
What type of articles does
the journal publish?
What is the target
audience of the journal?
How well known is the
journal?
What is the CV value of
getting published in the
journal?
Is the journal highly visible?
How frequently does the
journal release issues?
What is the time taken
topublication?
Is there an open access
publishing option?
Are there any charges
involved?
10 Tips

Find right journal tools
https://journalsuggester.springer.co
m/

Find right journal
https://journalfinder.elsevier.com/

Part (5) Reading Scientific Paper

How to Read a
Paper
Researchers spend a great
deal of time reading research
papers. However, this skill is
rarely taught, leading to much
wasted effort. This part
outlines a practical and
efficient three-pass method for
reading research papers
The key idea is that you should read the paper in up to three passes, instead
of starting at the beginning and plowing your way to the end. Each pass
accomplishes specific goals and builds upon the previous pass: The first
pass gives you a general idea about the paper. The second pass lets you
grasp the paper’s content, but not its details. The third pass helps you
understand the paper in depth.

The first pass: A bird’s-eye view
• The first pass is a quick scan to get a
bird’s-eye view of the paper. You can
also decide whether you need to do
any more passes. This pass should
take about five to ten minutes and
consists of the following steps:
– Carefully read the title, abstract, and
introduction
– Read the section and sub-section
headings, but ignore everything else
– Read the conclusions
– Glance over the references, mentally
ticking off the ones you’ve already read
At the end of the first pass, you
should be able to answer the five
Cs:
(1) Category: What type of paper
is this? A measurement paper?
An analysis of an existing
system? A description of a
research prototype?
(2) Context: Which other papers
is it related to? Which
theoretical bases were used to
analyze the problem?
(3) Correctness: Do the
assumptions appear to be
valid?
(4) Contributions: What are the
paper’s main contributions?
(5) Clarity: Is the paper well
written?

The second pass
• In the second pass, read the paper with greater care, but
ignore details such as proofs. It helps to jot down the key
points, or to make comments in the margins, as you
read.
– Look carefully at the figures, diagrams and other illustrations in
the paper. Pay special attention to graphs. Are the axes properly
labeled? Are results shown with error bars, so that conclusions
are statistically significant? Common mistakes like these will
separate rushed, shoddy work from the truly excellent
– Remember to mark relevant unread references for further
reading (this is a good way to learn more about the background
of the paper).

The third pass
• To fully understand a paper, particularly if you
are reviewer, requires a third pass. The key to
the third pass is to attempt to virtually re-
implement the paper: that is, making the same
assumptions as the authors, re-create the work.
By comparing this re-creation with the actual
paper, you can easily identify not only a paper’s
innovations, but also its hidden failings and
assumptions.
This pass can take about four or five hours for beginners, and
about an hour for an experienced reader

Part (6) Dealing with Rejection

• Some journals publish the paper online as a
PDF file of the final manuscript that was
accepted for publication (days to weeks).
• Within a few weeks, journal sends page
proofs of your article as it will appear in
printed or electronic form. These proofs need
to
• be read very carefully to check for printer’s
errors or other items that need to be
corrected. Journals usually want the
corrected proofs back within a few days.
What happens after your manuscript is
accepted for publication?
First, the
celebration
...
Second

How many rejections did you face
before your first paper got
accepted?

Rejection
If at First You Don't
Succeed, Cool Off,
Revise, and Submit
Again

Keep your emotions cool
• Let's face it – most scientists believe
in their data and assumptions and thus
expect that their paper will be
accepted with only minor revisions at
worst case. Thus, when the letter from
the editors hits your email with the
negative response, count to 10 and
breathe deep.
• The decision might be frustrating and
enraging, but remember that in most
cases the decision is not a personal
but a professional one (and in many
cases the reviewers' comments
improve the next versions of the
manuscript).
• ‫الهندسة‬ ‫بكلية‬ ‫بحثية‬ ‫علمية‬ ‫رحلة‬–‫المنصورة‬ ‫جامعة‬10‫ديسمبر‬2019

When does a rejection of a scientific paper become good to the author?
Have you experienced a rejection that worked out for your good?
• All of us go through this experience.
We love our research, we work very
hard at it. We want to share it with the
scientific community and the lay
people. But, sometimes our paper is
not accepted. Two of 3 reviewers
came back with some comments that
may not be called for.
• When does a rejection work out for
your good?
– When does a rejection of a scientific paper become
beneficial to the author? Have you experienced a
rejection that worked out for your good?
No submission "No
Rejection", No
publication...No work...No
Contribution...

A paper being rejected doesn't
always mean the research is bad.

• Previous rejection
• Slicing & Duplication
• Plagiarism (= copying)
• Unready work
• English so bad it’s ambiguous
• Unoriginal work
• Unsound work
• Incorrect journal
• Incorrect format
• Incorrect type
allocation
Ten common reasons for rejection
Scientific papers
* Incorrect type allocation
 Experimental set-up flawed
 Statistical analysis flawed
 Suggestion of scientific fraud or
data manipulation!
*Unsound work
 Case Report submitted as
Letter to the Editor

• Falsifying or ‘cooking’ research data
• Ignoring major aspects of human-subject
requirements
• Using another’s ideas without obtaining
permission or giving due credit
(plagiarism)
• Unauthorized use of confidential
information in connection with one’s own
research
• Failing to present data that contradict one’s
own previous research
• Publishing the same data or results in
two or more publications
• Withholding details of methodology or
results in papers or proposals
• Using inadequate or inappropriate
research designs
• Dropping observations or data points
from analyses based on a gut feeling
that they were inaccurate
• Inappropriately assigning authorship
credit
Top ten behaviors

Keep an open mind
• When first receiving a rejection letter, whether
the paper was rejected at the editor's or at the
reviewer's door, it is better to read the letter
again when you're passed the anger stage.
• Looking at the critics from a professional
perspective will enable you to open up to the
comments and see their role in improving
your manuscript. Read the critical comments
and for each comment answer the following
questions:
– Is this comment correct and relevant?
– Have the referee got to the bottom of the
experiment/claim?
– How much weight this comment has on the
overall rejection decision?
– Assuming this comment is correct and in
place, can I supply data/claim to defer it?
• Once you outlined the major
rejections it is time to
evaluate how much
improvements the
manuscript requires.
• You might want to get the
advice of a colleague, which
will look at the manuscript
objectively (it is best to
consult with a colleague
before submitting the
manuscript).

The most common options for next steps
after rejection
Appeal the rejection
Resubmit to the
same journal
Make changes and
submit to a
different journal
Make no changes
and submit to
another journal
File the
manuscript away
and never resubmit
it
Will discuss each option in details with recommendation!

Appeal the rejection
• The journal should have a publicly
described policy for appealing
editorial decisions. Appealing a
rejection is within your rights as an
author, but base your appeal on logic
and not emotion.
• If a legitimate misunderstanding or
error led the reviewers to recommend
rejection,
– Outline your points to the editor without
belittling ‫تحقير‬ the reviewers or being
argumentative.
• Appeals based on the scope of the
journal or the perceived impact of
your work are unlikely to succeed.

Resubmit to the same journal
• The journal may reject your initial
offering but invite you to resubmit
later after addressing the
reviewers’ concerns. If you are
strongly interested in publishing
in that journal, this option may be
your top choice.
• “Remember that some journals
will inform you that they are not
interested in accepting any future
versions of the manuscript”; you
should respect this decision and
try a different journal.

Make changes and submit to a
different journal
• The third option is by far the most
common.
• Carefully consider the comments
you received from the reviewers,
work to improve your manuscript,
and submit the manuscript to
another journal.
• Be sure to adjust details like the
– cover letter,
– reference format,
– other journal-specified details
before resubmission.

Make no changes and submit to
another journal
• While this option is very easy, it’s not a good
idea. By refusing to acknowledge any of the
changes that the first set of reviewers suggested,
you are basically negating all the effort
expended in that first round of review.
• Chances are that some of the suggestions would
improve your manuscript, even if some were
mistaken.
• New reviewers are likely to pick up on several
of the same issues; you now have a chance to
address them ahead of time. And on a more
practical note, your manuscript may actually be
reviewed by some of the same people at a new
journal. If you haven’t made any efforts to
change the paper, be assured that their
recommendation will not change!

File the manuscript away and
never resubmit it
• It can be easy to decide that your paper
simply isn’t worth the trouble of
resubmission. Still, while it is easy to let a
paper go, it’s not best for the research
community. Your data might be very
valuable to someone else, either to provide
the missing piece to a puzzle or to head off
fruitless avenues of research. As hard as it is
to believe in these days of complete media
saturation, scholarly publishing may yet
suffer from publishing too little, not too
much. If you don’t want to argue for your
article’s “fit” to a particular journal,
– Finally, you can post your work to a site
like figshare or Dryad, where it will be citable and
freely accessible.
Figshare is an online digital repository
where researchers can preserve and
share their research outputs, including
figures, datasets, images, and videos. It
is free to upload content and free to
access, in adherence to the principle
of open data

yes
Can a paper get
rejected after a
major revision?
a major revision of a paper will almost
and always go back to the original
reviewers to see if the revisions
respond to their comments.
One thing you can do in the future to
speed the re-review process is include
a cover letter with your revised
manuscript that explains how you
responded to the main comments of
reviewers. ("We added a paragraph in
Section 4.1 to better distinguish the
proscriptive and prescriptive
approaches." "We corrected the
problem pointed out in Equation (8).")
That way the reviewers can quickly
zero in on the parts of the paper that
changed, and conduct their re-reviews
more quickly.

Part (7) Habits Of Highly Visible PhD
Students and how Social media can
increase the author impact

7 Habits Of Highly Visible PhD Students and
how Social media can increase the author impact

Social media
• Habit 1: Upload Slides To Slideshare
• Habit 2: Tweet One Of Your
Publications
• Habit 3: Create A Blog And Write A “My
Research” Page
• Habit 4: Write A Blog Post Describing
One Of Your Publications
• Habit 5: Answer A Question In
ResearchGate
• Habit 6: Write A Comment In A
LinkedIn Group
• Habit 7: Write A Comment In Somebody
Else’s Blog

Use online services, networks and
communication tools to:
 Increase your research impact
 Connect with researchers within the same
field
 Build a reputation in your area
 Inform the general public about your research
 Discover the latest in your industry or
research field
 Gather feedback from others – may lead to
new directions / ideas
 Showcase your research group, center or
institute
• Social media can…
 promote, connect and disseminate your
research to a wider, non academic
audience
 potentially increase downloads of your
papers (link from Research Outputs
Repository or an open access journal
homepage)
 provide context around your research
projects
 help you engage in discussions with
colleagues with similar research
interests, or recent conferences
 grant a broader view of your research
impact using new forms of scholarly
communication
Twitter is a free, real time information network. Users can 'tweet' small bits of information to the
world. Follow others to discover the latest information and research.
Facebook is a social media tool that allows users to share a mix of media formats and aims to
connect people with friends and others who work, study and live around them.

Part (8) Error in Publications
and Misconduct

Error in Publications
What authors need to know about errata, corrigenda and retraction

Research Misconduct
I have recently submitted a paper with misconduct problem (Fabrication –
Falsification – Plagiarism) and whilst blower catch it and pass a report to
the journal.

Verification
Publication of any of these notices is not taken
lightly, and verification will be sought by the
publisher of the journal. Verification involves the
corresponding author unless he or she is not
contactable. Verification may be as simple as an
author confirming that a mistake was made in the
paper to a full investigation conducted by the
author’s institution or employer to explore whether
the research is fraudulent. Correspondence on the
concerns raised on a paper is dealt with as
confidentially as possible.
This involves only those people who can assist in
the resolution of a claim and can recommend
whether a notice is warranted.

How do each of these errata,
expressions of concern, and
retractions arise?
They are usually the result of a request
from the author or observation from a
reviewer, editorial board member, another
journal, a publisher, an employer, funder of
research, a reader or “whistle blower,” or a
comparison of content using plagiarism
software.

Retraction
• Can authors
separate
themselves
from a
retracted
publication?
• If retraction is
due to the
actions of some,
but not all,
authors of a
publication, the
notice of
retraction should
mention this.
Who should issue the retraction?
Articles may be retracted by their
author(s) or by the journal
editor. In some cases, retractions
are issued jointly or on behalf of
the journal’s owner (eg, a learned
society or publisher).
Retracted articles should generally
NOT be removed from electronic
archives or printed copies but their
retracted status should be
highlighted

Errata
‫مطبعية‬ ‫أخطاء‬
• An errata
refers to a
correction of
errors
introduced to
the article by
the publisher.
• All publisher-introduced changes are highlighted to the author
at the proof stage and any errors are ideally identified by the
author and corrected by the publisher before final publication.
• Authors who notice an error should contact the Journal
Manager
• Errata may be published to correct text or information that appears
anywhere within an earlier published article. Errata must be labeled and
published in citable form; that is, the erratum must appear on a
numbered page in an issue of the journal that published the original
article. For online journals or online-only content, the erratum must be
readily discernable in the table of contents of a subsequent issue and
must be associated with identifiable pagination or e-location.
An important difference between the traditional print journal and the online journal (or the online version of a print
journal) is that an article can have more than one version online. Typically, an article will be available as both full-text HTML
and a PDF showing the traditional print layout. If an erratum is published, both versions should be corrected for
errors; otherwise multiple versions of the same article exist

Corrigenda
• 1.
An error to be corrected.
• 2.
A list of errors in a book
along with their corre
ctions.
Notification of an important error made
by the author(s) that affects the
publication record or the scientific integrity
of the paper, or the reputation of the
authors or the journal.
What Should a Corrigendum include?
The complete bibliographic information for the corrected article:
- Acknowledgement of the person who helped find the error(s)
- Explanation of the correction, whether brief or extensive
- Brief errors can be mentioned along with the corrected form o In the correction of
an entire figure or table, only the erroneous parts need to be listed, along with a
complete revised figure or table
- Citation of any articles related to the correction, along with a standard reference list

General
Guidelines
• If the journal includes a print edition, the errata or retraction should be printed in
a subsequent issue, not just included on the website.
• When an author finds the article electronically, the fact that the erratum or other
notice exists should be clear in every location on the website: table of contents,
abstract, full text, etc.
• In the electronic form, links should be available BOTH from the article to the
erratum or retraction AND from the erratum or retraction back to the article.
• Even if the journal is not open access, the erratum or retraction should be freely
accessible to the public.
• If the consequences of the error may cause serious harm (such as errors in drug
dosages), the editor can contact the major databases to speed the process of
correcting the database records.
• When reviewing the accuracy of the reference list, any cited article that has a
retraction notice should be referred tothe journal editor.

An easy to remember scientific moral
code
• Lie (Fabrications)
• Cheat (Falsifications)
• Steal (Plagiarism)
DO NOT DO

Misconduct
CASE Study
CASE Study: Make-believe
Professor Abo is submitting a grant
application to support a large-scale
research project. The grant agency
requires evidence that experimental
methods have been successful in
smaller-scale projects. Abo hasn’t
conducted any preliminary
investigations, but he believes his
methods will be successful, so he
created a “make-believe” report about
preliminary studies to include in the
grant proposal.
– Abo’s misconduct may be
reported to the profession in a
publication. As a result, his
reputation may be profoundly
affected.
– Abo will not receive the grant.
As a result, his research
productivity will be negatively
affected.
– He may be barred from future
funding applications to the same
agency.
– Abo may lose his job or suffer
other penalties at his university.
Questions
1. Is this plagiarism, fabrication,
falsification, or serious deviation?
2. What consequences could Abo be
facing?
3. How could this problem be prevented?

PART (6) THE COMMITTEE ON
PUBLICATION ETHICS

• COPE is a forum for editors and
publishers of peer reviewed
journals to discuss all aspects of
publication ethics. It also advises
editors on how to handle cases of
research and publication
misconduct.
The Committee on Publication Ethics.
The Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) was established
in 1997 by a small group of
medical journal editors in the UK
but now has over 9000 members
worldwide from all academic
fields. Membership is open to
editors of academic journals and
others interested in publication
ethics
http://publicationethics.org/cope-case-taxonomy

Suspected plagiarism in a submitted manuscript

Suspected plagiarism in a published article

Prepare a great journal
submission package
A good submission package is one that has all the
information the editor of a journal and the
reviewer need to assess your manuscript. Here are a few
quick tips to ensure you have
everything in place for your submission:
Part (9)

Journal instructions
Ensure that you have followed all journal instructions with respect to the following:
Manuscript layout, font style, font size, file type, spacing, margins, heading styles, word limit, etc.
Manuscript structure
Re-check each section of your paper:
- Introduction: Should set the context for your study and research problem
- Methods: Should provide a detailed explanation of how you conducted your
research and the materials you used in the process
- Results: Should present your research findings in detail along with all the data
- Discussion/Conclusion: Should interpret the findings and discuss the impact that
your research may have on the field of study
- Abstract: Should offer a preview of your research, highlight key points, and help
readers decide whether to read the full paper
- Title: Should briefly convey what the study is about and should draw readers to your
paper
- Keywords: Should capture the essence of your paper, be searchable, and include
the most relevant terms from the field
Journal instructions and manuscript
structure

Language and flow
• Read your paper again to make sure it flows
well:
1. Ensure there are no spelling mistakes, typographical
errors, etc.
2. Proofread thoroughly before submission.
3. Ensure all sections flow smoothly and
logically – there should be no logic gaps
4. Get someone else (e.g., a colleague) to
read the paper for you and point out any
gaps in flow.
5. Get rid of any unnecessary jargon and
complex sentences.
6. Consider getting your paper
revised/checked by a professional editor.

Facts, data, terminology, graphics and
author information
• Facts, data, and terminology
• Check every detail in your paper: All data points, symbols, mathematical equations
and calculations, units of measurement, special values, nomenclature, scientific labels,
terminology, etc.
• Graphics
• Ensure that your tables, figures, and graphs:
• Are prepared in accordance with the journal’s guidelines (file type, format, file size, etc.)
• Are presented in a clear and reader-friendly way
• Correspond with the information presented in the text and are accurate
• Are correctly, clearly, and sequentially labeled
• Supplement the text with the relevant information
• Author information
– Include all author details as specified by the journal:
• Full names of all authors
• Updated designations of all authors
• Full contact details of the corresponding author (email, phone number, etc.)
• The author contribution statement in accordance with the journal’s instructions
• Any other information from authors that the journal needs

Attribution and acknowledgement
• Acknowledge all relevant sources of
information and help:
– Use quotation marks for content that
you have copied or reproduced as is;
present large chunks of information as
block quotations.
– Cite every source of information and
reference.
– If you plan to republish graphics
(figures, tables, etc.) or copyrighted
information from another author,
– make sure you have the author’s prior
written consent.
– Submit relevant consent forms in
accordance with the journal’s
guidelines.
– Make sure your references and
citations correspond to each other and
are presented based on the journal’s
instructions for authors.
– Include all sources of help and
assistance in the Acknowledgement

Disclosures and Cover letter
• Disclosures
– Disclose all relevant information:
• Acknowledge all financial support you have
received. (Refer to the journal’s submission
guidelines for specific forms.)
• Follow all relevant guidelines for patient
and animal care, clinical trials, and
environmental protection.
• Get an approval from your institutional
review board and include this at the time of
submission (if relevant to your paper).
• Ensure compliance to the guidelines laid
down by the International Council of
Medical and Journal Editors (ICMJE) that
all the authors in the manuscript have
provided consent for their authorship, and
have read and contributed to the manuscript
significantly.
• Confirm that the manuscript has not been
previously submitted or published in part or
full in any other journal, i.e., ensure that
your paper is not a duplicate publication.
• Cover letter
– Write a complete and compelling cover letter:
• Include full details of all authors.
• Briefly explain your manuscript’s
relevance and impact and how it
aligns with the journal’s aims and
scope.
• Disclose if your paper has been
previously submitted or published
elsewhere.
• Disclose any personal, commercial,
or financial relationships that might
be viewed as a conflict of interest.
• Provide details of all supplementary
material you plan to submit.

‫اس‬ ‫ن‬َ‫م‬‫ل‬ ‫دى‬ُ‫ه‬‫ال‬ ‫على‬ ‫هم‬‫ا‬‫ن‬‫إ‬ ‫العلم‬ ‫ألهل‬ ‫ا‬‫إال‬ ‫الفخر‬ ‫ما‬‫تهدى‬
‫ألهل‬ ‫والجاهلون‬ ‫يحسنه‬ ‫كان‬ ‫ما‬ ‫امرئ‬ ‫ا‬‫ل‬‫ك‬ ‫وقدر‬ ‫ء‬ ‫ا‬‫أدال‬
‫ا‬‫ن‬‫ال‬ ‫ًا‬‫د‬‫أب‬ ‫به‬ ‫ًّا‬‫ي‬‫ح‬ ‫تعش‬ ‫بعلم‬ ‫ففز‬ ‫أعداء‬ ‫لم‬ِ‫ع‬‫ال‬‫وأهل‬ ‫موتى‬ ‫اس‬
‫أحياء‬ ‫لم‬ِ‫ع‬‫ال‬

‫جائزة‬ ‫الى‬ ‫الطريق‬
‫فيصل‬ ‫الملك‬‫الحلم‬
‫واالمل‬
"‫ال‬ ‫الهادفة‬ ‫العظيمة‬ ‫أعمالهم‬ ‫تصنعه‬ ‫وإنما‬ ،‫والحسب‬ ‫والنسب‬ ‫الجاه‬ ‫يصنعه‬ ‫ال‬ ‫األفراد‬ ‫مجد‬‫خدمة‬ ‫ى‬
‫كلها‬ ‫واإلنسانية‬ ‫وبالدهم‬ ‫أمتهم‬ ‫وخير‬ ‫عقيدتهم‬«
‫الفيصل‬ ‫خالد‬ ‫األمير‬
‫العالمية‬ ‫فيصل‬ ‫الملك‬ ‫جائزة‬ ‫هيئة‬ ‫رئيس‬

• Be a good academic citizen
• Know what you’re doing
• Keep track of what you’ve done
• Back everything up
• Don’t Lie (fabrications)
• Don’t Cheat (falsifications)
• Don’t Steal (plagiarism)
• Publish your discoveries
Finally…

رحلة البحث العلمى: أدواته وأخلاقياته

رحلة البحث العلمى: أدواته وأخلاقياته

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to رحلة البحث العلمى: أدواته وأخلاقياته

Similar to رحلة البحث العلمى: أدواته وأخلاقياته (20)

More from Aboul Ella Hassanien

More from Aboul Ella Hassanien (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

رحلة البحث العلمى: أدواته وأخلاقياته