also see
https://theaok.github.io/swb/final_project.pdf
and first sec 'ps comments' https://theaok.github.io/swb/con.pdf
big picture
you paper must be very similar to a handfuld of papers already published, if it is not, if you have not find such papers, then very likely what you are doing doesnt make sense
do something small, doable, advance knowledge by little bit; dont try
to save the world at once
dissertation
also
see https://github.com/theaok/phd
(lots of great advice, tho little outdated; forked from someone's else github)
for dissertation examples see https://www.acqol.com.au/publications#theses
and see Leonie C. Steckermeier dissertation:
Autonomy and the good life: toward a better understanding of the
inequality of perceived autonomy and its significance for individual
life satisfaction
https://141.48.10.209/bitstream/1981185920/81392/1/Steckermeier_Leonie_Christine_Dissertation_2022.pdf
and see:
title={Regional Quality of Life in EU.},
author={Tomas Hanell},
journal={https://aaltodoc.aalto.fi/bitstream/handle/123456789/34080/isbn9789526082134.pdf}, pages={}, year={2018}, publisher={},
workflow
not that impossible other way, but seems most productive (at least
for me): 3 main stages
conceptualize, figure it out, get the idea formed, ideally do start looking
at the data and literature and get basic things figured out, make a
lot of notes: this can be done at various intervals here and there
actual production: this one you have to have blocks of uninterrupted
time! someting like tens of hours, say 30hrs over Sat and Sun, (with
some sleep between); and then more blocks like that; probably around
50-200hrs, as continuously as possible; indeed best just have like one
or two full weeks to nail it, put it >=80hrs/wk; then take like 2
weeks off!
finally, polishing, reorganizing, redoing some of it, focusing,
simplyfying, etc, like 1st stage can be done here and there
if you havent publish yet
look at journal articles! for happiness: johs journal of happiness studies,
ariq applied research in quality of life; and in general for social
indicators such as trust and freedom: sir social indicators research
and follow their lead! your paper should look like the recent ones
from journals in the field in terms of everything!: amount of lit,
depth and breadth of analysis, style and formatting, etc
your paper will be evaluated by ppl who published on this recently probably in this jou; and editor who likes stuff thats published recently
(class papers: do decide explicitly on journal and say it in the paper (and give
reasoning), say as a footnote to the title)
make it look like a paper in a targeted journal!
always have abstract and keywords!!
always have "conclusion and discussion" section at the end
marketing is kinda cool like trying to sell it well; but waste of time in a sense that it doesnt produce anything; better strategy like approach hot topics, and new cutting-edge stuff
if not from the begining at least towards the end of paper production,
spin it towards a given journal, say:
you're shooting for Public Opinion Quarterly,
go into google scholar
and advanced search (menu on top left) and search for what you write
about, say:
abortion
published in
Public Opinion Quarterly:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=abortion&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=any&as_sauthors=&as_publication=Public+Opinion+Quarterly&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C31
and there is a bunch! do make sure to go thru them and fix up your paper and cite them abundantly--if you submit to a given journal important to make sure to be in a good conversation with line of conversation in that journal; also these are going to be the reviewers and judges of your work--authors that publish in that journal
if data
make sure to obey replication principle, eg absolutely have
to have (and submit along with assignments!) a dofile or python script etc that will produce final results
that you have in your paper from the VERY RAW data, eg data you have
downloaded from the website; elaboration https://theaok.github.io/dm/replication.pdf
per regressions follow excellent https://stats.oarc.ucla.edu/stata/webbooks/reg/
per interactions:
https://www.stata.com/features/overview/factor-variables/
and
https://www.stata.com/why-use-stata/easy-to-grow-with/linear.pdf
Linear Regression Models with Interaction/Moderation-Stata
marginsplot
format output properly!! if stata, can
use: outreg2
or estout
and for descriptive stats can use logout https://theaok.github.io/dm/exp.do
if svy res
make sure your var is coded right way!
codebook varName, tab(100)
eg often var is -9 for missing!!
have to recode that!eg:
replace varName=. if varName==-9
do plenty of des stats before regressions:
sum var1 var2
ta var1 var2, mi
scatter var1 var2
hist var1
at very least every paper needs descriptive stats for every variable: mean, sd, min, max
often need to reverse var, so that higher val means 'more' or 'better' and it`s intuitive eg happiness 1(lo)-3(hi), not 1(hi)-3(lo); install user written command:
findit revrs
revrs varName, replace
that would create a new var revVarName
always have to have actual survey questions asked to a respondent in
the paper!!
if GSS
just get the full cumulative data set 1971-21
use lookfor in stata to find vars
lookfor satis
to match both 'SATISfied' and 'SATISfaction'
use
website https://gssdataexplorer.norc.org/
to
identify vars: click 'Search Variables' eg: 'hope' and click say
'hpeless', see on right it says 'Related Variables' so you can
snowball and catch them all on your topic
dont forget about practical/substantive sig!
think and interpret the magnitude, eg: flextime has a large effect on
happiness-the size effect is about as large as that of household
income, or about as large as a one-step increase in self-reported
health, such as up from good to excellent health:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11482-017-9525-8
also may have beta coef
regress happiness male city health income age age2, beta
so then intrepret whether your key var of interest is large or small
in magnitude as compared to other key vars such as health and income
tip of the day: print it out
Definitely your paper!
You see things differently on paper.
Rearrange, move parts around.
My advisor (one year, the best geographers in the world!) used to cut it
up with scissors and glue back on the top of another sheet of paper.
I'm more modern and mark it up to move around: eg i'd circle couple
paragraphs and put `1->` then where i move it i put `->1` and then 2,3
etc. And when i type it in, i move stuff around. Do reorganize, move things around.
Also print out your key literature, and mark them up.
use appendix or supplementary online material (som) a lot
Look at top journals such as Nature, Science, PNAS: most of work is in
appendix or supplementary online material (som) it may be 20, or
even 200 pages: all the details, elaborations, and supplementary
analyses, robustness checks etc. But the actual paper is several pages
only, typically just 2-3, maybe 4-5 tables/figures. Only the most
important and critical ones that make the point and tell the story;
all the other stuff that`s useful but not necessary to make the key
point/tell the story is postponed to appendix/som. We obviously have
info overload, do not overload your readers, be as concise and to the
point as possible. People don`t have time to read the stuff that they
don`t have to. Readers just want to learn new stuff as quickly and
efficiently as possible. Rare few who want all the details and
intrincacies will find them in appendix/som.
follow scientific writing advice
Do get yourself `On Writing Well`
Book by William Zinsser!!!
And see https://theaok.github.io/swb/final_project.pdf
sec:"links: good research in words of others"
do work continuously but don`t work continuously for too long
warning: thinking/academic work is bad for your body!!!
do a test: sit on laptop for like 6hrs continously (typical load to get anything done), then get up and note how stiff and really weak and de-energized you are!
and have enough of these 6hr blocks over time and you deteriorate greatly in
general, not just physically, mentally too--sure
easy to see why working in a mine with a hammer is bad for you, but so
is thinking/academic work!
warning: thin line: do need uninterrupted blocks of time, eg all Fri, all Sat, all Sun at 14hrs per day, BUT then do other stuff like outdoors, exercise, social connection--if you do research all the time for too long it will fry your brain (you`ll become crazy)
its actually good not just for happiness, but also for productivity to take a break; have like a week or two without looking at it at all, and then when you come back youll not just be more productive, but also will see much better things you didnt see earlier; BUT before you take a break try to wrap up as much as you can so you dont lose the momentum and dont spend time on coming back to it; AND do make notes what are the next steps and things todo when you come back
Let it sit for 2-3 weeks. Or even longer, few months (after the class,
of course). When you come back you see things you haven`t seen before
because its all in your head and you don`t realize whats on paper and
whats missing where (your head v paper).
be flexible and opportunistic, simplify!
im realizing its been intensive and overwhelming, so keep in mind what
i said yesterday: simplify, be flexible and opportunistic (do whats
easy and doable now) eg readjust your hypothesis to data, keep the big complicated stuff for later,
likewise per my comments: do *NOT* do everything i ask for: much or most of my comments should be put towards the end into "limitations" and "future research"
Important! be clear about them!
How ideally it should be done?
Doesnt have to have everything perfec, but has to know whats missing!!
and say it
manage complexity: simplify!
research is at least in some ways essentially a process of managing complexity--a key challenge and part of the research process is managing complexity; managing complexity is speaking plainly dealing with being overwhelmed, so simplify, make it easy on yourself, do something that is doable, postpone big ideas for later; never try to do everything now perfectly, youll drive yourself crazy
do talk to scholars in your field that you know about from the literature
The scholars in your narrowly defined field won`t be at your school!
There`s a handful of them, say 5-50, they`re scattered around the
world, so do email them, they`d be happy (unless it`s a top top Nobel
prize laureate kind of person, she`d be too busy to talk to you) --
you`re both passionate about the same thing; coauthor! Most scholars
need coauthor and like to have a new one. Ideally get a junior scholar
to team up: PhD student or assistant professor, they`re more upto
date,
on the bleeding edge, more eager, and more in need to do research; if
a senior scholar, ideally one thats productive, well established
(published and cited a lot), so a top one (but again probably not very
top top Nobel prize kind of thing).
related to previous, paper is useless if held in a drawer, share it
with the world
Not just to impress and boost your CV, but mostly to make it better;
research is a life long pursuit, it takes years or a lifetime to
really figure something out. And the only way to do that is to work
with your field. Your field doesn`t know about you, unless you
share. You share ONLY in 2 ways: academic conferences and
publications -- this is the only way to take your work to the next level when you get feedback from your field -- again top people
in your narrowly defined field, again about 5-50 people in the world,
won`t be at
your school. Sure there will be people in related area at your school,
but not exactly precisely in the very narrow area that YOU are
doing -- almost always you`re not doing the exact same narrow area from
the exact same perspective that scholars do at your institution.
Comments from your narrowly defined field are priceless--again the only way to take your work to the world class level. And don`t get discouraged, typically you`ll get rejected, I`m getting rejected say 70perc of the time after being in the field for 20 years. But you still get the priceless comments on how to make it better!
related to previous: keep your pipeline full
It takes on average 3mo to get comments, can take 6mo, write another
paper and submit, keep it going, don`t wait for comments to move on,
you`ll be stuck for months, *KEEP PIPELINE FULL*, I always have at least 3,
ideally at least 5 papers under review at any given time.
style
avoid opinion; use evidence: either literature or data
format tables and graphs so they look like those from journal
articles; each table and graph must be numbered and have a caption and
be refered to by its number from text
usual comments on first draft of paper
I am mostly happy with your drafts,
but, lets not be complacent and work more and try to publish it;
really need to push it ahead and put much more work into it to
have a good final product.
Again, need to to reply inline to
all comments, however small they may be (most of you were shy).
2 general comments: need to beef it up and polish! See published
research for examples. Bring everything together, this should be
cumulative: ie, intro, lit rev, data, results,
conclusion/discussion.
Try to be objective: this is not op-ed or opinion, try to be
scientific and present also contradicting information or other
points of view. Make sure your text is connected to your analysis!
It flows logically. Sometimes, you may actually produce a lot of
output but end up having unfinished project: this may still be an
A if there was a lot of work involved. Indeed, often, naturally,
producing a good paper takes a lot of time, and it is better to
have it unfinished than force it finish and produce something
mediocre!
publishing game: editors, reviewers, revise and resubmit
work smart not hard and have some strategy; some pointers below
Remember the editor makes the decision, not reviewer.
And in general in later rounds of reviews the edits to paper are lighter and lighter
If something really goes into a new paper, say so in response to reviewer! Thank her for comments, but say that it will be a new paper, so it cant be fully accommodated here. And then indeed in the future you may write that another new paper. I did few times. Then you have 2 papers 😃
Again one way to deal with it is to use appendix and or online supplementary material--can put there stuff to satisfy one person but avoid dissatisfying the other. Almost nobody will read appendix or online supplementary material, so what's there doesn't upset a person, but it can be used to satisfy another person--can say in response to reviewer that you took suggestions into account and put it in appendix or online supplementary material
And yes you will actually quite often find reviewers among themselves or with editors disagreeing.
Couple ideas how to figure out where to go:
How strong/mild is suggestion
Editor is more important than reviewer
Some reviewers are more important than others (some are students some are very senior scholars), and so reviews are not equal, some are weighted more than others
In general try to satisfy as much as possible, disagreeing risks rejection
Sometimes do disagree, especially if a person doesnt make sense, but always be super polite and respectful
(The more senior you become, the more you may disagree; not just that you know more, but you risk less, you already have many papers published and going on)
Think critically, which reviewer (or editor) makes more sense and
follow that
do start with very small/incremental contribution or even
replication only
eg Heliyon:
Any paper reporting scientifically accurate and valuable research,
which adheres to accepted ethical and scientific publishing standards,
will be considered for publication. As such, the journal also
publishes manuscripts reporting negative/null results, incremental
advances, and replication studies
(and RU has a deal with Elsevier to cover APC (article publishing charge))
title and abstract are important
want both title and abstract to reflect paper main points as good as possible. Title and abstract are very important! Some people will only read that and many will read the paper or not solely based on title and abstract, so in a way these are actually some of the most important parts of the paper. The key is your findings and main points you make, not background info or literature.
publish or perish
journal: johs, sir, ariq; or the other field you study, eg drugs,
spirituality, housing, etc: papers are typically a connection of two
fields: you main IV (eg urbanism) and DV (SWB), so can ship them to
either field's journal
publish or perish: this is dead serious, if you don't you have failed,
you'll perish
independent study/directed study/work together
let's keep on working on the papers so that we dont perish: can do
informally over github/email/zoom even in summer or more formally take
independent/directed study course with me
present
do fit within time window, sharp, you will be cut off
focus on YOUR study and YOUR contribution; not background info
not too many slides like 1 per minute, 15 min presentation like 15 slides
not too many lines per slide like <=12
do take notes (right away)!!! that's the whole purpose of presenting is to get
comments! (to enlighten audience is typically
secondary) if you don't take notes, you'll
forget the comments