The PhD application package usually requires that you prepare a number of possible documents. Regardless of which items are required, you should consider all the documents as components contributing to a whole application. These components, when reviewed together, should be able to effectively convey your motivation for researching a particular topic at a specific institution.

In this webinar organised for Academic Writing Month 2022, watch our experts share tips on how to write your literature review.

When meeting with a disproven or failed hypothesis, after having expended so much time and effort, precisely how should researchers respond? Responding well to a disproven or failed hypothesis is an essential component to scientific research. This article explores common reasons why a hypothesis fails, as well as specific ways you can respond and lessons you can learn from this. 

Withdrawals and/or retractions can negatively impact your reputation as a researcher, which is why it is important to avoid them and keep your publication pipeline healthy and productive.

In this webinar organised for Academic Writing Month 2022, watch our experts share tips and strategies on how to avoid common academic writing errors.

Occasionally, researchers inadvertently submit their articles to predatory journals. Here, we consider some scenarios that you might find yourself in, and suggest some steps that you can take in each case.

If your submission is not accepted by your first-choice journal, that journal’s editor can refer the paper to another publication which they think would be more suitable. This is known as journal transfer or transfer cascade.

An academic monograph agree is generally a single-authored, scholarly contribution of professional research on a specific topic or aspect of a topic. This article explains the reasons and considerations for writing and publishing a monograph.

Many researchers work towards commercial avenues to realise the potential of their technology. Here, we discuss ways to begin - and some things to consider on - your start-up journey.

Every step of research — from conception to publication — is prone to bias. Thus, it is imperative to understand the various forms and flavours of bias so that you can avoid them and produce verifiable, replicable and reliable research.

Many scientists engage with the public while they are still immersed in their research. However, if you are thinking of becoming a full-time communicator, you’ll need to know a few things to get started.

In applied research, you will likely deal directly with the subjects that your work will impact. A certain set of skills is needed to thrive in such a field, some of which we will uncover in this article.

Academic writing isn’t just scientific; it can also be about expressing your views on a topic or field of interest. Journal articles that come in this category of ‘viewpoint writing’ include perspective articles, opinion articles and commentary articles. 

At times, authors can be pulled in different directions in terms of revising their manuscripts in the light of the comments from reviewers. This article offers you some tips on how to handle this situation and respond to the reviews effectively.

Peer review is meant to be a neutral, impartial assessment of the novelty, rigour and scientific merit of a study. Any deviation from objectivity in academic peer review is considered biased peer review. Biased peer review compounds other biases.

With the rapidly increasing volumes of submissions today, timely peer review depends on a diverse and readily available reviewer pool. Early Career Researchers (ECRs) are a valuable resource to tap into for this. What’s more, ECRs stand to gain much from early peer review experience. 

On occasion, an author will receive a rejection that should be appealed against. Although appeals typically fail, editors tend to be reasonable and view appeals as an important element of maintaining the research integrity of their journals.

Viewed from the outside, the peer review process can resemble a ‘black box’, an opaque system that remains largely obscure to all except the editorial office and the reviewer panel. This article opens the black box, unravelling how peer reviewers view a submitted article.

A crucial tool nearly all journals use to train and guide their peer reviewers is the review or reviewer protocol, a formal document to guide the reviewer through the different steps of a manuscript review. 

Although the peer review process has limitations and flaws, it remains the single-most important mechanism for evaluating scientific research. An essential component to research integrity is integrity in the peer review process. Authors, reviewers and editors all contribute to research and peer review integrity.