Chapter 60 Developing a Manuscript for Publication Allyn Byars, PhD and Michael C. Greenwood, PhD     After the completion of a research project, the dissemination of the results can take on many forms including oral presentations, poster presentations, round table discussions and debates.  As a result, it is important that the presentation of work be prepared in a manner consistent with the guidelines established by the various organizations, conferences, and professional journals.  In addition, it should also be noted that presentation of the research at conferences and/or other learned forums typically precedes publication.  This chapter will present information that will be helpful as one attempts perhaps the most important type of presentation, the journal submission.  Although every journal is different in respect to their guidelines for submission, the following information will address components of a research article that are inherent to most journals regardless of their scope or level of commitment to excellence.  BEFORE SUBMITTING Choosing a Journal In deciding which journal to submit your work, the content and scope of the research being published from each potential journal should be considered before the actual submission of the manuscript.  When contemplating the journal submission process, one should also consider the typical subscriber or audience for the journal, format and length requirements, publication schedule (i.e., quarterly, annually, monthly), the rigor for acceptance, and the length of the review process.  Just as authors discover during the literature review process, journals are written for researchers and the practitioners alike and range from very general themes to more specialized concentration areas.  This spectrum of writing diversity should be considered when determining the right journal for submitting your work.  In addition, you may also discover an article to use as a model as you prepare the manuscript for publication which can be invaluable as you write in the style mandated by the style manual adopted by the journal which influences punctuation, abbreviations, capitalization, and spelling of numbers (e.g., APA, MLA).  COMPONENTS OF A TYPICAL MANUSCRIPT Preparatory Information Title The title is the reader’s first contact with the content of the research article and therefore should stimulate an individual to read the article.  It should also be written as concisely as possible identifying key variables that were investigated and the associations between them.  Since titles are used in abstracting and information services databases, the title should be limited length (10-15 words) and can be easily shortened for editorial needs and for a “running head” used with the actual published article.  A “running head” is an abbreviated title that is printed at the top of the pages of a published article to identify the article for readers and is typically no more than 50 characters, counting letters, punctuation, and spaces between words.  However, the title should still properly reflect the content of the research.  Many titles are nothing more than a restatement of the problem.  However, cliché’s such as “A Study of” or “An Investigation of” should be avoided since they serve no useful purpose and only add length to the title [1].  In addition, Pyrczak [3] suggest the following: (1) if only a small number of variables are studied, the title should name the variables; (2) if many variables are studied, only the type of variables should be named; and (3) the title of a journal article should be concise while the title of a thesis or dissertation may be longer. A title should indicate what was studied, not the results or conclusions of the study. Consider mentioning the population (s) in a title when a study is delimited to a particular type of population that might be of interest to consumers of research.  Consider the use of subtitles to amplify the purposes or methods of study.  If a study is strongly tied to a particular theory or model, consider mentioning it in the title.  A title may be in the form of a question; this form should be used sparingly and with caution.  In titles, use the word effect and influence with caution.  A title should be consistent with research hypothesis, purpose, or question. Consider mentioning unique features of a study in its title.  Avoid clever titles, especially if they fail to communicate important information about the report.  The following represent a few examples as suggested by a few noted authors [2,5]: The 1.5 mile run as a Test for Aerobic Endurance in College Students Group Cohesiveness and Team Success Among Men’s Intercollegiate Soccer Teams A Health-Related Knowledge Test for Female College Freshmen in Scotland Body Figure Perceptions and Preferences Among Adolescent Males Author and Organizational Affiliation Authors’ names appear beneath the article title and, typically, are ordered in accordance with the relative contributions made to the research study.  The affiliation or institution of each author usually appears in a footnote or in a special box located on the first page of the article.  Readers who may have questions or want article reprints and therefore, recently published articles usually provide mailing and/or e-mail addresses of the primary author in order to facilitate communication [2].  The preferred form of an author’s name is first name, middle initial (s), and last name; this form reduces the likelihood of mistaken identity.  Use the same form throughout your career to assist researchers as well as librarians.  Do not use initials on one manuscript and the full name on a later one.  Omit all titles (e.g., Dr., Professor) and degrees (e.g., PhD, PsyD, EdD.).  The affiliation identifies the location where the author or authors conducted the investigation, which is usually an institution.  When no affiliation exists, list the city and state of residence below the author’s name.  If the affiliation changes, give the current author location in the author identification notes [1].  Acknowledgements A notes section for acknowledgements is sometimes included in the back of the article depending upon the guidelines of the journal in which the manuscript was submitted.  However, some acknowledgements are at the front.  In addition, appendices are sometimes allowed at the back for questionnaires, inventories, tabular information, special materials, or even illustrati ons of testing equipment [2].  Abstract An abstract is typically 150 to 200 words or around 1-3 paragraphs long, depending upon the varying journal requirements and can be found at the beginning of the article following the title and author’s names.  The abstract will sometimes appear in Italics or be indented to distinguish it from the main article.  It is a brief summary of the study and should include a succinct purpose or problem statement, information about the subjects, major procedures and methods used to investigate the problem, significant findings, and conclusions based on the results.  It is an overview of the study and usually will have the following [2]: Problem or purpose giving rationale from which it was developed Methods indicating variables, procedures, analysis Findings  In addition, Pyrczak [3] suggests the following: In the abstract, refer to the research hypotheses, purposes, or questions. Highlights of the methodology should be summarized. Highlights of the results should be included in the abstract. If a study is based on a theory, name the theory in the abstract. Although an abstract should usually be short, there are exceptions.  The following abstract demonstrates several of the important points just discussed. THE EFFECTS OF EXERCISE INTENSITY AND BODY POSITION ON CARDIOVASCULAR VARIABLES DURING RESISTANCE EXERCISE. Colin Wilborn, Mike Greenwood, Frank Wyatt, Rodney Bowden, Darren Grose. JEPonline 2004;7(4):29-36.  The role of exercise intensity and body position on cardiovascular alterations during resistance exercise needs further investigation.  Consequently, the purpose of this study was to evaluate differences in cardiovascular variables and body position at: a) one-repetition max (1 RM); b) 65 % of 1 RM; c) 85 % of 1 RM for both leg press and hack squat. Sixteen male subjects completed tests on an inverted leg press (ILP) and upright hack squat (HS) allowing calculations of 1 RM, and 65% and 85% of 1 RM.  Participants completed a maximum number of repetitions to volitional failure at each intensity, followed by five minutes of recovery between sets.  Participants then rested for 10 min and completed the same series of tests on the alternative machine.  Manual sphygmomanometry was used to measure blood pressure (BP) before and immediately after completion of each set. A heart rate (HR) monitor using electronic telemetry was used to track changes in HR. There were no significant (p > 0.05) differences in systolic blood pressure (SBP) or HR between body position or apparatus.  A significantly higher HR and BP were found in the following conditions for HS: 65% > 1 RM, 85% > 1 RM, 65% > 85%.  Also, during the LP condition, BP and HR were greater at 65% than during 1 RM.  These findings suggest cardiovascular measures are influenced by intensity, rather than apparatus or body position, during resistance exercise.  Key Words:  Blood pressure, Heart rate, Strength training  Introduction General Information The body of a paper opens with an introduction that presents the specific problem under study and describes the research strategy.  Because the introduction is clearly identified by its position in the article, it is not labeled.  Before writing the introduction, consider [1]: Why is this problem important?  How do the hypothesis and the experimental design relate to the problem?  What are the theoretical implications of the study, and how does the study relate to previous work in the area?  What theoretical propositions are tested, and how were they derived?  A good introduction answers these questions in a paragraph or two and, by summarizing the relevant arguments and the data, gives the reader a firm sense of what was done and why.  A well-written introduction should leave the reader with a clear understanding of what is being studied and why it is being studied [2]. Background into the Problem The introduction should initially contain some general background information into research problem or purpose of the study.  A good introduction will help the reader understand the problem by providing critical background literature that helps the reader understand why the author conducted the study.  The background acquaints the reader with the problem and establishes the foundation and rationale for conducting the study.  The length can vary from 1 paragraph to several.  The background information, however, is not an exhaustive review of literature, but includes references that are the most important and timely.  The background should consist of an insightful analysis and evaluation of each research source as it relates to the objectives of the current study.  Only those studies that have a significant relationship to the current problem should be included.  Facts and theories should be presented and their relationships shown.  In addition, assume that the reader is knowledgeable about the field for which you are writing and does not require a complete digest.  However, develop the problem with enough breadth and clarity to make it generally understood by as wide a professional audience as possible.  Do not let the goal of brevity mislead you into writing a statement intelligible only to the specialist.  A scholarly review of earlier work provides an appropriate history and recognizes the priority of the work of others.  Citation of and specific credit to relevant earlier works are part of the author’s scientific and scholarly responsibility and are essential for the growth of a cumulative science [1].  At the same time, cite and reference only works pertinent to the specific issue and not works of only tangential of general significance.  In summarizing earlier works, avoid nonessential details; instead, emphasize pertinent findings, relevant methodological issues, and major conclusions.  Refer the reader to general surveys or reviews of the topic if they are available [1].  Lead-In to the Problem As an integral part of an introduction, include a paragraph or two to lead into the problem or purpose statement.  As with the background information, this section should include some references from the literature, but not an extensive and exhaustive review.  Authors typically point to gaps in the literature, contradictory results or unexpected findings from previous research, and the benefits to be derived from their study.  In essence, this section helps justify the study.  A careful analysis of related studies is important in verifying the worth of the study and in helping to establish the overall justification.  Gaps in the existing knowledge in the problem area should surface and establishes further rationale for the study and to justify its need.  The lead-in demonstrates the logical continuity between previous and present work.  In addition, it should establish interest from the reader [2].  Problem or Purpose Statement After you have introduced the problem and developed the background material, you are in a position to explain your approach to solving the problem.  At this point, a definition of the variables and a formal statement of the problem or purpose, give clarity to the paper.  Authors usually state a specific purpose of the study or problem statement near the end of the introduction section and are usually one sentence long, but could be longer.  Some have hypotheses; however, fewer and fewer authors are stating these in a published manuscript.  It is this section which helps identify key variables in the study and gives understanding to the scope of the study.  One should bear in mind the following questions in closing the introduction:  What variables did I plan to manipulate?  What results did I expect, and why did I expect them?  The logic behind “Why did I expect them?” should be made explicit.  Clearly develop the rationale for each hypothesis [1].  The problem or purpose statement  should be stated clearly, concisely, and definitively.  It indicates why the study was done, spells out reasons or objectives for study, and the impact on the current body of literature [2].  Examples include: bridges gaps in the literature, more and better knowledge is needed in the area, present knowledge needs validation, practices need clarification, and a solution to a problem needs to be found [2]. Method The Method section describes in detail how the study was conducted.  Such a description enables the reader to evaluate the appropriateness of your methods and the reliability and the validity of your results.  It also permits experienced investigators to replicate the study if they so desire.  If your paper is an update of an ongoing or earlier study and the method has been published in detail everywhere, you may refer the reader to that source and simply give a brief synopsis of the method in this section [1].  It is both conventional and expedient to divide the Method section into labeled subsections.  These usually include descriptions of the participants or subjects, the apparatus (or materials), the procedure and the data analysis.  If the design of the experiment is complex or the stimuli require detailed description, additional subsections or subheadings to divide the subsections may be warranted to help readers find specific information.  Include in the subsections only the information essential to comprehend and replicate the study.  Insufficient detail leaves the reader with the questions; too much detail burdens the reader with irrelevant information [1].  The content and length is dependent on the type and complexity of the research.  Participants or Subjects Appropriate identification of research subjects is critical to the science and practice of exercise physiology, particularly for assessing the results (making comparisons across groups); generalizing the findings; and making comparisons in replications, literature reviews, or secondary data analyses.  The sample should be adequately described, and it should be representative (if it is not, give the underlying reasons).  Conclusions and interpretations should not go beyond what the sample would warrant. When humans participated as the subjects of the study, report the procedures for selecting and assigning them and the agreements and payments made.  Report major demographic characteristics such as sex, age, race/ethnicity, and characteristics such as socioeconomic status, and disability status if warranted.  When a particular demographic characteristic is an experimental variable or is important for the interpretation of results, describe the group specifically – for example, in terms of national origin, level of education, health status, and language preference.  Even when a characteristic is not an analytic variable, reporting it may give readers a more complete understanding of the sample and often proves useful in meta-analytic studies that incorporate the article’s results. When animals are the subjects, report the genus, species, and strain number or other specific identification, such as the name and locations of the supplier and the stock designation.  Give the number of animals and the animals’ sex, age, weight, and physiological condition.  In addition, specify all essential details of their treatment and handling so that the investigation can be successfully replicated. Give the total number of subjects and the number assigned to each experimental condition.  If any did not complete the experiment, state how manly and explain why they did not continue. When you submit your manuscript, indicate to the journal editor that the treatment of subjects (people or animals) was in accordance with the ethical standards of your governing body concerning research practice (e.g., institutional review board). Apparatus  The subsection on apparatus briefly describes the apparatus or materials used and their function in the experiment.  Standard laboratory equipment can usually be mentioned without detail (e.g., stopwatch, nose clips, etc.).  However, it is important to identify specialized equipment obtained from a commercial supplier by the model number of the equipment and the supplier’s name and location.  In addition, the validity and reliability of important instruments should be reported.  Complex or custom-made equipment may be illustrated by a drawing or photograph and how developed if needed.  A detailed description of complex equipment may be included in an appendix.  Procedure  The subsection on procedure summarizes each step in the execution of the r esearch.  This includes the instructions to the participants, the formation of the groups, and the specific experimental manipulations.  A well-written procedure section will answer questions such as how long did it take, where performed, what did subjects do, what did the researcher do, who collected the data,  and what safeguards?  This section in essence the recipe for the study.  For experimental studies, also report the design, independent and dependent variables, treatments, and data analysis [2].  Describe randomization, counterbalancing, and other control features in the design.  Summarize or paraphrase instructions, unless they are unusual or compose an experimental manipulation, in which case they may be presented verbatim.  Most readers are familiar with standard testing procedures; unless new or unique procedures are used, do not describe them in detail [1]. Remember that the procedure section should tell the reader what you did and how you did it in sufficient detail so that a reader could reasonably replicate your study.  Methodological articles may defer highly detailed accounts of approaches (e.g., derivations and details of data simulation approaches) to an appendix [1]. It is a data collection plan for attacking the problem.  It provides rationale for selecting certain methods, techniques, procedures.  The soundness of the study is defined by the procedures.  It is the cookbook for the problem.  Specific details concerning where the data came from, how the data was gathered, and analyzed in order for another to replicate the study. Includes participants, arrangements for the study, instruments, design, training, administration of test, testing and gathering data, collection procedures, pilot study, and treatment of data, data analysis procedures and so forth [2].  Baumgartner [2] recommends asking the following questions in developing the procedures section: Was the population clearly specified? Is the design appropriate to the problem? Were the sampling procedures clearly specified and the total sample adequate? If a control group was involved, was it selected from the same population? Were the various treatments (including control) assigned at random? Were appropriate statistical treatment procedures selected and the level of significance selected in advance? Were the reliability and validity of the data gathering instruments and procedures established and reported? Were the treatments and/or methods of the collection of data describes do clearly and completely that an independent investigator could replicate the study? Are the characteristics of the subjects clearly representative of the population? Were extraneous sources of error either held constant or randomized among subjects of all groups?  In summary, Pyrczak [3] suggests the following: Decide whether to use the term subjects or participants to refer to the individuals studied. Describe your informed consent procedures, if any, as well as steps taken to maintain confidentiality. The participants should be described in enough detail for the reader to visualize them. When a sample is very small, consider providing a description of individual participants. A population should be named, and if only a sample was studied, the method of sampling should be described. If there was attrition, state the number who dropped out, the reasons for the attrition, if known, and information on the dropouts, if available. Unpublished instruments should be described in detail. If a published instrument was used, briefly describe the traits it was designed to measure, its format, and the possible range of score values. For both unpublished and published instruments, information on reliability and validity, when available, should be reported. Experimental procedures, equipment, and other mechanical matters should be described in sufficient detail so that the study can be replicated.  Results Results make up a large portion of the paper because it includes all of the major data analysis and findings of the research study.  The results section summarizes the data collected and the statistical or data analytic treatment used.  Report the data in sufficient detail to justify the conclusions.  Mention all relevant results, including those that run counter to the hypotheses.  Do not include individual scores or raw data, with the exception, for example, of single-case designs or illustrative samples.  Discussing the implications of the results is not appropriate here.  Results sections should not contain a discussion, explanation, or interpretation of the results.  Demographic data is presented first if not in the methods section.  It is then followed by more substantive results surrounding the research questions.  Most articles, regardless of the type of research will report basic descriptive statistics, such as means, standard deviations, frequencies, and percentages for the key variables. Advanced statistics dealing with relationships and inference are presented later.  Most is presented in text form; however, the use of tables and figures is also common.  Tables and figures are used to complement the results and should follow their contextual reference [2]. In qualitative studies, researchers often have notes from interviews or filed observations that must be organized and synthesized.  There is no numerical data to report or analyze.   The results are a narrative presentation of the findings, often supported by the words of the participants, including direct quotations [2]. Tables and Figures To report the data, choose the medium that presents them most clearly and  economically.  Summarizing the results and the analysis in tables or figures instead of text may be helpful; for example, a table may be helpful; for example, a table may enhance the readability of complex sets of analysis of variance results.  Avoid repeating the same data in several places and using tables for data that can be easily presented in a few sentences in the text. Tables commonly provide exact values and, if well prepared, can present complex data and analyses in a format that is familiar to the reader (e.g., ANOVA tables).  Figures of professional quality attract the reader’s eye, provide a quick visual impression, and best illustrate complex relationships and general comparisons but are not intended to be as precise as tables.  Always be aware that the scale and form of figures can have a great influence on the resulting interpretation of the data, can be scrupulous in presenting the data in as fair a manner as possible.  Figures are more expensive than tables to reproduce, and both formats are more expensive than text to compose, so reserve them for your most important data and situations where their use enhances your ability to communicate your findings [1]. When you use tables or figures, be certain to mention all of them in the text.  Refer to all tables as tables and to all graphs, pictures, or drawings as figures.  Tables and figures supplement the text; they cannot do the entire job of communication.  Always tell the reader what to look for in tables and figures, and provide sufficient explanation to make them readily intelligible. Statistical Presentation. When reporting inferential statistics (e.g. t-tests, F-tests, and chi-square), include information about the obtained magnitude or value of the test statistic the degrees of freedom, the probability of obtaining a value as extreme as or more extreme than the one obtained, and the direction of the effect.  Be sure to include sufficient descriptive statistics (e.g., per-cell sample size, means, correlations, standard deviations) so that the nature of the effect being reported can be understood by the reader and for future meta-analyses.  This information is important, even if no significant effect is being reported.  When point estimates are provided, always include an associated measure of variability (precision), specifying its nature (e.g., the standard error).  The reporting of confidence intervals (for estimates of parameters, for functions of parameters such as differences in means, and for effect sizes) can be an extremely effective way of reporting results.  Because confidence intervals combine information on location and precision and can often is directly used to infer significance levels, they are, in general, the best reporting strategy.  The use of confidence intervals is therefore strongly recommended.  As a rule, it is best to use a single confidence interval size (e.g., a 95% or 99% confidence interval) throughout the course of the paper.  Assume that your reader has a professional knowledge of statistics.  Basic assumptions should not be reviewed.  If there is, however, a question about the appropriateness of a particular test or approach is sure to justify its use. When reporting inferential statistics, include sufficient information to help the reader fully understand the analyses conducted and possible alternative explanations for the out-comes of these analyses.  Because each analytic technique depends on different aspects of the data, it is impossible to specify what constitutes a set of minimally adequate statistics for every analysis.  However, a minimally adequate set usually includes at least the following: the per-cell sample size, the observed cell means (or frequencies of cases in each category for a categorical variable), the cell standard deviations, and an estimate of the pooled within-cell variance.  In the case of multivariable analytic systems such as multivariate analyses, regression analyses, and structural equation modeling analyses, the mean(s), sample size(s), and the variance-covariance (or correlation) matrix or matrices are a part of a minimally adequate statistics set.  The APA (1) recommends the following: For parametric tests of location (e.g., single-group multiple-group, or multiple-factor tests of means), a set of sufficient statistics consists of cell means, cell sample sizes, and some measure of variability (such as cell standard deviations or variances).  Alternatively, a set of sufficient statistics consists of cell means, along with the mean square error and degrees of freedom associated with the effect being tested. For randomized-block layouts, repeated measures designs, and multivariate analyses of variance, vectors of cell means and cell sample sizes, along with the pooled within-cell variance-covariance matrix, constitute a set of sufficient statistics. For correlational analyses (e.g., multiple regression analysis, factor analysis, and structural equation modeling), the sample size and variance-covariance (or correlation) matrix are needed, accompanied by other information specific to the procedure used (e.g., variable means, reliabilities, hypothesized structural models, and other parameters. For nonparametric analyses (e.g., chi-square analyses of contingency tables, order statistics), various summaries of the raw data (e.g., number of cases in each category, sum of the ranks, sample sizes in each cell) are sufficient statistics. For analyses based on very small samples (including  single-case investigations), consider providing the complete data in a table or figure. Statistical Power  Take seriously the statistical power considerations associated with your tests of hypotheses.  Such considerations relate to the likelihood of correctly rejecting the tested hypotheses, given a particular alpha level, effect size, and sample size.  In that regard, you should routinely provide evidence that your study has sufficient power to detect effects of substantive interest.  You should be similarly aware of the role played by sample size in cases in which not rejecting the null hypothesis is desirable (i.e., when you wish to argue that there are no differences), when testing various assumptions underlying the statistical model adopted (e.g., normality, homogeneity of variance, homogeneity of regression), and in model fitting.  Statistical Significance Two types of probabilities are generally associated with the reporting of significance levels in inferential statistics.  One refers to the a priori probability you have selected as an acceptable level of falsely rejecting a given null hypothesis.  This probability, called the “alpha level” (or significance level”), is the probability of a Type I error in hypothesis testing and is commonly set at .05 or .01.  The other kind of probability, the p value (or significance probability), refers to the a posteriori likelihood of obtaining a result that is as extreme as or more extreme than the observed value you obtained, assuming that the null hypothesis is true. Because most statistical packages now report the p value (given the null and alternative hypotheses provided) and because this probability can be interpreted according to either mode of thinking in general it is the exact probability (p value) that should be reported.  There will be cases – for example, large tables of correlations or complex tables of path coefficients – where the reporting of exact probabilities could be awkward.  In these cases, you may prefer to identify or highlight a subset of values in the table that reach some prespecified level of statistical significance.  To do so, follow those values with a single asterisk (*) or double asterisk (**) t indicate p < .05 or p < .01, respectively.  When using prespecified significance levels, you should routinely state the particular alpha level you selected for the statistical tests you conducted.  For example: An alpha level of .05 was used for all statistical tests. Effect Size and Strength of Relationship Neither of the two types of probability value directly reflects the magnitude of an effect or the strength of a relationship.  For the reader to fully understand the importance of you findings, it is almost always necessary to include some index of effect size or strength of relationship in your Results section.  You can estimate the magnitude of the effect or the strength of the relationship with a number of common effect size estimates, including (but not limited to) Kendall’s (1999) proposed measures of clinical significance, and the multivariate. As a general rule, multiple degree-of-freedom effect indicators tend to be less useful than effect indicators that decompose multiple degree-of-freedom tests into meaningful one degree-of-freedom effects – particularly when these are the results that inform the discussion.  The general principle to be followed, however, is to provide the reader not only with information about statistical significance but also with enough information to assess the magnitude of the observed effect or relationship. In summary Pyrczak [3] suggests the following: Organize the analysis and results section around the research hypotheses, purposes, or questions stated in the introduction. Standard statistical procedures need only be named, you do not need to show formulas or calculations. The scores of individual participants usually are not shown; instead, statistics based on scores should be reported. Present descriptive statistics first. Organize large numbers of statistics in tables, and give each table a number and descriptive title (i.e., caption). When describing the statistics presented in a table, point out highlights for the reader. Statistical figures (i.e., drawings such as bar graphs) should be professionally drawn; they should be used sparingly in journal articles. Statistical symbols should be underlined or italicized. Use the proper case for each statistical symbol. Spell out numbers that are less than ten.  Spell out numbers that start sentences. Qualitative results should be organized and the organization made clear to the reader. Discussion After presenting the results, you are in a position to evaluate and interpret their implications, especially with respect to your original hypothesis.  This section contains a non-technical explanation of the results.  The author presents the outcomes of the study in addition to providing an interpretation of the findings, culminating with a conclusion that provides an answer to the research problem.  Some authors may have a separate section for the conclusions.  It is often the least structured of the research report with the author taking considerable latitude in the writing [2].  Discussion is where the results are discussed at length and conclusions based on the results are stated.  This is usually a lengthy section.  Discussion begins with a brief restatement of the research problem followed by a general statement summarizing the results.  There is no statistical notation or numeric information.  Open the Discussion section with a clear statement of the support or nonsupport for your original hypothesis.  The author attempts to connect the results of the study with appropriate theory, professional practice, and the related literature.  In doing so, similarities and differences between your results and the work of others should clarify and confirm your conclusions.  Do not, however, simply reformulate and repeat points already made; each new statement should contribute to your position and to the reader’s understanding of the problem.  Acknowledge limitations, and address alternative explanations of results. The discussion may include comments on each finding followed by discussion of all the findings as a whole.  Often included in the discussion  of findings is a comparison of how the findings agree with those in the literature cited at the beginning of the manuscript. Also, there may be statements concerning the importance and application of the findings [2].  You are free to examine, interpret, and qualify the results, as well as to draw inferences from them.  Emphasize any theoretical consequences of the results and the validity of your conclusions.  (When the discussion is relatively brief and straightforward, some authors prefer to combine it with the previous Results section, yielding Results and Discussion or Results and Conclusions).  Controversial issues, when relevant, should be treated fairly.  A simple statement that certain studies support one conclusion and others support another conclusion is better than an extensive and inconclusive discussion.  Whatever your personal opinion, avoid expressing it in a manner inconsistent or not supported by the relevant literature.  Additionally, do not support your position or justify your research by citing established authorities out of context [1]. You are encouraged, when appropriate and justified, to end the Discussion section with commentary on the importance of your findings.  This concluding section may be brief or extensive, provided that it is tightly reasoned and self-contained.  In this section you might address the following sorts of issues [1]: Problem choice:  Why is this problem important?  What larger issues, those that transcend the particulars of the subfield, hinge on the findings?  What propositions are confirmed or disconfirmed by the extrapolation of these findings to such overarching issues? Levels of analysis:  How can the findings are linked to phenomena at more complex and less complex levels of analysis?  What needs to be known for such links to be forged? Application and synthesis:  If the findings are valid and replicable, what real-life psychological phenomena might be explained or modeled by the results?  Are applications warranted on the basis of this research? The responses to these questions are the core of your contribution and justify why readers outside your own specialty should attend to your findings [1].  These readers should receive clear, unambiguous, and direct answers. Multiple Experiments If you are integrating several experiments in one paper, describe the method and results of each experiment separately.  If appropriate, include for each experiment a short discussion of the results, or combine the discussion with the description of results (e.g., Results and Discussion).  Always make the logic and rationale of each new experiment clear to the reader.  Always include a comprehensive general discussion of all the work after the last experiment. Conclusions consist of statements concerning what the researcher thinks is true at the population level based on the finding from the samples used in the study (2).  Avoid reaching conclusions that are not supported by the results or the design of the study and not what you though would be true.  Sometimes cautions are stated concerning the misinterpretation of the results and also of the limitations of the results.  Do not over-generalize the results, that is, attempting to apply the findings and resultant conclusions to settings or populations that are not warranted by the study. In summary, Tuckman (1999) suggests the following: Summarize findings. Interpret the findings (the most important part of this section). Integrate findings both expected and unexpected to achieve meaningful conclusions and generalizations. Theorize findings with previous findings that either support or refute. Recommend or apply results for practice. Suggest extensions to for further study. References Just as data in the paper support interpretations and conclusions, so should reference citations document statements made about the literature.  Whenever possible, support your statements by citing empirical work, such as method and results of a previous study or a review of earlier studies.  All citations in the manuscript must appear in the reference list, and all references must be cited in text.  The reference list should be succinct, not exhaustive; simply provide sufficient references to support your research.  Choose references judiciously and cite them accurately.  For example, if you retrieve an abstract but do not also retrieve and read the full article, your reference should be identified as an abstract.  The standard procedures for citations ensure that references are accurate, complete, and useful to investigators and readers [1]. Books, journal articles, and all other sources should be cited by the author.  However, the format will vary depending on the writing style of the journal that has been adopted.  Regardless, if a reference is in the text, this source should be documented.  References provide the reader with additional sources of information related to the topic and are usually alphabetized with the length dependent on the number of sources which will typically  contain three to fifteen listings [2]. Appendix An appendix is helpful if the detailed description of certain material is distracting in, or inappropriate to, the body of the paper.  Some examples of material suitable for an appendix are: (a) a new computer program specifically designed for your research and unavailable elsewhere; (b) an unpublished test and its validation; (c) a complicated mathematical proof; (d) a list of stimulus materials (e.g., those used in psycholinguistic research); and (e) a detailed description of a complex piece of equipment.  Include an appendix only if it helps readers to understand, evaluate, or replicate the study. Author Note The author note accomplishes four objectives: (a) identifies the departmental affiliation of each author; (b) identifies sources of financial support; (c) provides a forum for authors to acknowledge colleagues’ professional contributions to the study and personal assistance; and (d) tells whom the interested reader may contact for further information concerning the article. In addition, the author note is the place for disclosure: for example, mentioning the bases of a study, such as a dissertation or whether the study is part of a large-scale multidisciplinary project; indicating that the results have been presented at a meeting; and explaining relevant interests or relationships that raise the possibility of being perceived as a conflict of interest.  (APA authors are required to complete a conflict of interest form; see the journal’s instructions to authors.) Authors of book chapters that present a revised, condensed, or expanded version of a previously published journal article should also disclose this information in a note of this type. SUBMITTING THE ARTICLE After Writing After the first draft, you must proof read it with attention given to manuscript form, correctness of content, economy and clarity of presentation, and correctness of spelling and grammar.  This is especially true of the more prestigious journals.  Use spell check and grammar check on word processing programs.  However, it is important to remember that they do not catch everything.  Authors are usually listed in order of contribution relative to developing the problem, formulating the hypothesis, setting up the design, selecting the data analysis, interpreting the findings and writing the report [2].  Finally, send out the correct number of required copies with a cover letter. What to Expect After submitting the article to the journal of your preference, the manuscript will usually be evaluated by at least two reviewers or associate editors.  It will be assessed for content, quality, and whether or not the manuscript fits the scope of the journal.  Although most journals will send correspondence of receipt of the submission, the review process can vary from a couple of months to several months.  Upon return of the evaluation, the authors will typically send notice indicating acceptance, needs revision, or complete rejection of the article.  As an author, one should expect the article to need some sort of revision from its original form prior to complete acceptance.  At this point the authors can decide whether to revise and send back or send it to another journal.  However, if the manuscript is rejected (which sometimes sting or at least can be unpleasant), the suggestions can be valuable and can help one determine if resubmission of the article is warranted for the journal in which the article was first submitted or perhaps another journal.  Either way, the value of the process, whether it is accepted or rejected, is one in which learning can come from both,  including how to improve the project or one of similarity in the future.  SUMMARY A typical format for the preparing a manuscript for publication has been presented, however, this may be modified according the particular requirements of the journal in which the article is submitted.  The reader of the manuscript should not have to make any assumptions as to what was done in the research or what was found in the results.  General guidelines for preparing an article for publication are detailed.  In addition, examples are presented to assist the reader in understanding the research concepts inherent in writing and submitting a research report.  The main purpose of the research manuscript is to convey the results of the research endeavor with clarity as a fundamental necessity of the report.    References 1. American Psychological Association. (2001). Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, 5th ed. American Psychological Association, Washington D.C. 2. Baumgartner, T.A., Strong, C.H., and Hensley, L.D. (2002). Conducting and Reading Research in Health and Human Performance, 3rd ed. McGraw-Hill, New York. 3. Pyrczak, F. and Bruce, R.R. (2003). Writing Empirical Research Reports, 4th ed. Pyrczak, Los Angeles. 4. Tuckman, B.W. (1999). Conducting Educational Research, 5th ed. Harcourt Brace, Orlando, FL. 5. Thomas, J.R. and Nelson, J.K. (2001). Research Methods in Physical Activity, 4th ed. Human Kinetics, Champaign, IL.