Hi, my name is Shady Attia. I am an assistant professor of sustainable architecture and building technology at Liege University in Belgium. I'm going to present today, a presentation on how to write a journal paper. There is already a series of videos that I prepared before, I advise you to have a look and watch these videos
because they are a kind of foundation for today's presentation. Looking at how to select a journal for publication,
citation and biography, literature review, how to select a topic and make research ideas assessment, and how to submit a paper and the process of journal publication submission. So, all these topics were before. I advise you to watch them. And in the same time, if you're interested, I advise you to subscribe for my channel. The audience of this presentation is early career researchers
who are looking to publish a journal for the first time. And I am looking today to talk about three topics. It's the content, it is the structure, and it is the form. So, these are the three topics that groups my presentation. First of all the content. Familiarize yourself with the journal publication issue,
you need to be familiar what is a journal publication. As I told before, watch the videos. Include recent and relevant and key publication
of the journal in the literature review. So, where the journal you are publishing in, make sure that you already cited the key publications related
to your topic from the same journal, this is very important.
Avoid that the paper focus is not directly related to the scope. Once your focus is out of the scope of journal,
the chance you get rejected is very high. Otherwise, the paper would be more appropriate for another journal. So be wise from the beginning, take the time to make sure that this topic, this paper is matching the scope of the journal. Okay, use a top-down approach, deductive approaches in writing for an expert. Many people when they start to write,
they are assuming that they are talking to non-experts. Actually, that's not true. When you're writing on a journal paper level, you're talking to experts. So, try to be brief. Don't be verbose. Try to avoid this long introduction to come to the problem. We all know about climate change, we all know about energy efficiency,
try to be focused, just enter directly in the aim of your work and its contribution. What do you want to do?
What findings do you have? What correlation did you find or what kind of discovery you have for us? So please do that and talk in an expert language. Most importantly, give a novelty claim. You need to show in the introduction what is novel in this work,
in the abstract also, in the introduction and compare explicitly your result with earlier results. Share, say - what has improved, what gap did you cover,
what kind of findings or added value you have? So, these are some essential things to start with. Now, the publication content, you need to have the abstract
of the introduction are the last things to write. So, I advise you to write the abstract
and introduction at the end of the manuscript. Make sure the introduction is exciting. When you can do that? When you first finish the result sections and the discussion, you go straight to your introduction abstract, and when you write them, you write them in exciting way. Introduction needs to trigger the reader and show him or her
that this is a high-quality work. It's different, it's unique, it's coming with something new. And you have to cover different aspects related to the topic
from the problem to the objective and aims to the significance importance added value,
the methodology, the results, and so on. Start with your conclusion, then write the introduction
so that the introduction is in line with the conclusion. The introduction could be the most important content to encourage reviewers to read further and potentially accept the paper. And believe me or not, when reviewers are under pressure, they will read only the introduction, and based on the introduction, they will decide whether to go continue further or to stop. So, take it seriously. Well highlight the added value in significance of your research
in the discussion or conclusion. You have to reiterate, don't say one thing one time, if you talk about innovation or significance in the introduction, you have to say it again in the discussion. And you must also in the discussion mention the limitations of your work. Discuss study finding and strengths and study implication
and implementation in the future work. This is my advice in the discussion section.
So, you talk about findings. You talk about the implications of your work and the strengths of it.
And then you can go talk about future work. Those are three nice ways to structure your discussion.
How it looks something like that. That's a journal publication, as you can see, and in the same time, it is entitled - A Guide to writing articles and energy sites. I advise you to download this paper and read it, it's very useful. It's very insightful. So, this could be a start to read about how to write a paper
and in the same time reading a journal paper. Well, I am done with the first part, talking now about the Form. The form you are familiar, I guess, with this form of journals,
this is the journal after being produced, okay. But in reality, you don't submit your publication like that. You just submit it in the form of a Word file. So, it's a simple word file, or a Latics format file. And the publisher will create the layout and produce this publication
based on this manuscript. So, don't get confused. Now, what should I do to start with, I need to have a Word file. I opened my Word file. First thing to do double or 1.5. spacing. Why spacing? To allow reviewers to correct and to have space between lines. Number two to do use font number 12, I advise you to use Arial
and start numbering all pages. Number all the lines and do not exceed the maximum words for the journal. So, make sure if you are requested to not exceed 8000 words, then you're accepting the 8000 words, if it's 10,000, then it's 10,000. In average, a journal will take between 10,000 to 12,000 words. But it is up to you to read the author's instructions for every journal
and meet these requirements. This is how it looks. When I start writing a paper on my Word file. It is a double space or a one a half space. As you can see on the left side here, there is numbering of the line. Never ever forget to number your page.
So, page numbering is definitely important. You are looking at figures. I highlight the figures in green,
so that they are visible. All the figure citations are in green. And all references I am citing them in yellow, so that I can detect easily where are the references,
where are the figures and tables. Now important thing regarding the form,
this is how it looks when you write a text. You should make sure that you have topic sentences
you open with the topic sentence, the topic. Then, you start with the indentation, you have to indent the topic.
Let's have a look. Do not use very short or very long paragraphs.
Do not use very long, complex sentences. There is a tendency of people to write long sentences. Chop your sentences. Be precise. Go step by step.
Say one idea in one sentence. The funny thing is that when young researchers, they start writing,
they want to show that they are intellectual, they want to show that they can go manage complex things. So, they keep writing long sentences with three or four different arguments. This is not good. Keep it simple. You want to say many ideas, chop them and write them in a sequence
and make sure there is no complexity, neither on the level of the paragraph,
neither on the level of the sentence and check the syntax. Start a private paragraph with a topic sentence
or some other indication of the subject. The opening of any paragraph should be a topic statement argument. And then you go into detail by showing some example. Or supporting this main argument with sub arguments. Divide long text section into smaller parts with headings and look that there is a follow up between these different paragraphs
at the end of the day. And that the headings are enforcing the structure and the line of thoughts and ideas that you want the readers to follow. Okay, what I have to do when I'm starting to write? When you have a list of items, use bullets,
I always advise you to use bullets. Highlight references in yellow and figures and tables in green,
I just showed you that. Any term, symbol, or abbreviation you can put in the table of abbreviation,
I will show you later on how it looks. So, these are important things related to the editing of your manuscript. And here as you can see, this is a text I decided to,
here is the indentation, I indent. The first paragraph you don't indent, but in the following paragraph you have to indent. So here I have indentation. Then I have bullets, bullets, bullets,
and then I indent again, for my text. This makes the text more from an organizational point of view,
accessible, readable, easier to understand and to follow double lining, page numbering, and line numbering. Okay? So what else I have to look at on the form level? I have to save all my files, most probably JPEG jpg,
or in the format of TIF, 300 DPI resolution. Make sure because you will prepare a folder of different files. You will have a cover letter, detailed responses,
figure captions, highlights, manuscripts, if you have revised manuscripts, reviewer comments, tables and captions. All these files, it's a package. Put them in one folder. And for every version of the paper,
you have a folder that groups all these files. Save the figures as I said, as TIF or JPEG.
Save each figure independently in a separate file. Cite each figure in the text, and the figure caption should be placed
on top of the figure. So, I will tell you some basic terminologies. I have a figure. Figure citation means that I mentioned the figure in the text. This is called citing the figure in the text. So, the figure is cited. Number two, any figure has something called a caption.
I can see figure number five. It has caption under the figure.
However, for tables, we put the caption above the table. So, this is a bit confusing, but just keep it into account. When I have a figure, I put a caption under the figure,
when I have a table I put the caption above the table. For figures and tables, I must cite them in the body of the text. Please don't forget that it's very important. Tables always are written in capital,
the first letter of table is always capital table 't' capital 'T' and for figures, the 'F' is always in the capital. So, you see table capital 'T' figure capital 'F'. And you can see that the text here is citing this figure, and this figure has a caption under it. So, this is very important to keep into account. The same happens with tables, you need to cite the table in the text. And the table needs to have a caption. Very important. Okay, so this is how it looks. And at the end, I group all the tables in one file. Tables are grouped in one file.
Figures are grouped independently in separate files. And as you can see, figure one is cited here and is cited here also. Okay. Figure caption is in a separate file.
So, I only do the following. I cite the figure here. And then I cite it in the place I want to put it in the text. So now I'm talking about a specific figure. So, I cited in the body in the text. Then, I want to tell you that the figure should be in this place of the text. So, I mentioned it again.
So here where the figure should be placed. Why? Because I don't copy paste or insert the figure in my main manuscript. Actually, what I do, I just cite the figure in the body,
I mention the location where it should be placed. And the production officer or manager,
he or she will place it in the final production. All I need to do is to provide the figure in a separate file, and group all the captions together in one file. So, this is how it looks with figures.
With tables it's much simpler, I will cite the table. I will mention the table and then I will have the tables all with caption in one file. So, this is my advice to you. And if somebody asked me how does it look a figure captions file?
This is how it looks. I can see here figure 1 2 3 4 5 6 they are having the caption.
Okay, they are cited here. They are mentioned here and the file is separately grouped.
So, the figure has three things. First is the separate file. It must be cited in the text once in the body of text and once for the location of the figure
and it must have a caption grouped with other figures. So, this is simply how we do it with the caption of figures. Okay, for tables you have to save all the tables with all captions in one file. It's called tables with caption. Cite each table in the text. Table caption should be placed on the top of the table, and table should start with capital letter as I mentioned before. Now moving to the structure of your paper,
you are going to go into a hierarchical process for your publication. So, first thing to do, look at how you will create sections for your publication. Scientifically, we don't need to invent the wheel. We have the IMRED method or the IMRED hierarchy, which is simply a hierarchy way to clarify the structure. I have here a checklist. If you want to check it on my website,
you can download it for free. And it's very useful to help you structure your journal publication. But in general, we are looking at introduction,
a literature reviews a methodology, results, discussion, conclusion, acknowledgement and references. That's it. That's a classical paper journal structure. And as you can see, in any publication before I can read it,
I will find always on the left side, the article outlines. In this case, highlights, abstract, abbreviation, keywords,
introduction, state of the art, methodology, results, discussion, conclusion, uncited references,
acknowledgement, and references. So, this is the structure for a classical paper. In some cases, some authors they prefer to make something called
parallel descriptive structure, which means that they come up and they change the titles
and they make paper-specific titles respecting the IMRED. As you can see here, the author decided to have introduction. Instead of saying literature review, they said past research.
Very good! very acceptable. It gives the same meaning. Here, instead of saying results, they say new design for adaptive facades, which is intelligent. Also, he's trying not to make it boring. And finally, sorry, maybe the new design,
this is the methodology most probably, and here he says result for the new design
and finding, the conclusion and recommendation. So, you can see here that this is called parallel descriptive. While this approach is called non-parallel, non-descriptive approach
for structuring your paper. Whether you take this or that, I advise you, in the beginning, take a classical approach to not to confuse the reviewer. It's already difficult for you to write properly. Writing is a skill, it takes time. So, keep it simple, but unless you are interested to do that, and you're certain about your writing skills, it's okay. First to do a title make the title short, specific, not too general,
brief, clear descriptive, less than 10 words, emphasize novelty. So, these are examples you can start with triggering words simulation of,
assessing of, comparison of, developing of and like this you make your title moving. In the active sense; showing action. And then you use keywords that shows the interesting
or new contribution or added value. After the title, at most four or five names are recommended for authors.
Look for authors. Now, this is an example for a paper. It has only two authors. Here this was a collaboration with a master student,
she was the first author, I was the second author. Keep in mind that it's not logical to have more than five authors already. Three is fine. Include those who had more scientific contribution in order. The order of names reflects the significance of the contribution. The first name is the most contributing one.
And then it goes further and further. In some other institution, where I have been working in Liege,
the first author is the biggest contributor. And the last author is the reviewer. Sorry, not the reviewer. The team leader, the supervisor, the coach, the main investigator of a project. So, when I publish with anybody and I am not the main contributor, I always put myself at the end as leader or supervisor for publication. And when I am leading the publication and I am the main contributor,
I put myself in the beginning and then I cite other colleagues or authors, co-authors following me. But in general, the basic rule says that the order of the name of authors
shows the level of complete contribution. Okay, after authors, those who acquired funding
should be mentioned in the acknowledgement. Sometimes people who got the money, but they didn't contribute, you have to acknowledge them
in the in the acknowledgement. Give the name and address of your employer. You should always put the name of your institution. You can see here, the name of the owner, I'm saying,
we have here three authors. We mentioned their name, first name, family name for all of them. Then the first author is the corresponding author. And then we put the affiliation where they are working,
we don't put their position. No, we put the affiliation. So, in this case, for example, the Norwegian University of Science of technology,
Department of Civil and transport engineering, Trondheim, Norway. In my case, it is the Sustainable Buildings Design Lab Department, ArGEnCo Faculty of Applied Sciences University of Liege, Belgium. That's all what you have to do. So, you put the author names and affiliation. And an author can have several affiliations. If you are working, or you are a visiting scholar in a place, you can put the affiliation of your home institution,
and from the host institution. After the authors are decided, we have to write an abstract,
don't make it exceed 250 words. Don't make it long. It should cover the problem, aims, methodology,
some expected results and audience and impact. So, it is very brief. And it's interesting to open the topic for readers and make them go and decide to download
or to buy your publication for reading. These are examples of abstract that are written,
most of the time in the medical world. And they have very good, precise ways of writing abstracts. You can see background, methods, findings, interpretations. I prefer that you write all that in one paragraph,
but cover these topics still in the same abstract. Keywords are following next. You will need to have six to eight keywords. Those keywords should not be matching any words that was in the title. So those are complimentary additional words,
to increase the search engine chances to find your work. And they have to be in the context of the problem. And the most common words that represent your research
that are not mentioned in the title. I'm repeating again, for keywords, you should not use any keyword
that is already mentioned in the title. Okay, looking at an example
'Dynamic building kit for adaptable and reusable wall solutions'. I can say design solutions. I can say post war housing. I can specify the city I'm working on, energy efficiency or renovation. So, this is an example how to come up with keywords. Most of the time, they are six to eight that are complimentary with the title. After that, you will need something called highlights. What are highlights? Highlights are short collection of bullet points that convey the core findings. Highlights provide readers with quick textual overview of the article. They must be in bullet format, and three to five bullet points maximum. And make sure you are not exceeding 85 characters per highlight. So, you see the highlights here are very short. A systematic approach to proper selection of best retrofit option is proposed. The generic building retrofit problem is presented. Key issues involved in the building retrofit investment decisions are discussed. We review the previous studies on existing building retrofit. So, we are giving brief messages, very short, 85 characters at maximum. Five of those maximum highlights to represent the paper
and make it more accessible. So now the reader is going to read highlights, keywords, title, abstract. He or she can say - yes! I want to read
and further download this paper or no I'm not interested. Recently, many journals asked for something called the graphical abstract. And this is not my representation. I forgot from where I found it. So, I apologize for that. But this is was a paper published and the author's they represented
the paper in one graphic. And today, next to the highlights many journals
ask you to have something called graphical abstract. It's a visualization. It's one scheme. It's a sort of infographic that you develop that represents in a way or another,
your whole work in a visual way. And it's very useful because people who are visual they can also facilitate
the accessibility to the document. So, all this work is simply to facilitate accessibility to your work. Okay, I am done with the title, keywords, abstract, abbreviations. I am going next now to abbreviations. Abbreviations simply should be a list. You put it in the beginning of your text directly after the highlights
and they are summary of the key words that you have or the nomenclature if you are using equations. And these equations have some constants
or some abbreviations or some figures or some letters that represent some specific meaning
related to these equations. We will do something called the nomenclature or we call it abbreviation. Abbreviation is more of the times when it's abbreviation for words. So, if I say ISO, International Standardization Organization. So, when I say ISO, I mention it in the abbreviation and then across the text I am need not write every time
International Standardization Organization. I just mentioned ISO. So, this is why we do abbreviations. Now, the question is the nomenclature. The nomenclature is very similar to abbreviation. When I have a lot of equation and indexes,
I had a recent study about financial indicators. And we had the inflation rate, depreciation value
and different other economical values. And every time we will be using these short terms or letters for them. It is not logical every time to use the same word. So, we come in the nomenclature,
and we put all the abbreviations and not only that, we focus on the equations and assumptions for any cost. So, this is the role of abbreviation and nomenclature. You have to include it in the beginning, before the introduction piece. After that, you can start your introduction. In the introduction, you need to discuss the background information,
the aims and objectives of your work, the significance of your work, the methodology and results of your work. And you have to discuss who is the audience of your work? And what is the organization of the work? These are all structured, in a way to make sure
that you are writing properly an introduction. For background, what is the problem? What's happening? Then you tell me what is the aim of the work?
What is the objective of this work? What is the importance, the added value, or the innovation, the significance? What is the expected the impact? What are the results? Or at least highlights of the results? What was your methodology? Who is benefiting from this work? And finally, how can I read this work?
And how is it structured? So, this should be the structure of the introduction. Additionally, in the introduction, it should meet an answer,
all the requirements of the quad chart. And if you don't know what is a quad chart, I advise you
to watch the video called research ideas assessment. So, make sure that your introduction is embedding in the text, all the topics and themes or ideas that were discussed
in the Quad chart previously. This is how it goes. Now we move from the introduction to the literature review. There is a video called literature review analysis. It is the time here in this paper to put your tables that you created previously,
and to start to talk about them. You have to present a background, scientific background,
extended definition of your problem. I need definitions here. I need to know what terminologies are we talking here
to make this work articulated? And then I need you to tell me what is the literature? What is the classification comparison with other publications? You have to group this work. You have to make some subtitles,
grouping the main publications under categories, so that I can understand what are you talking about. And your work originality should be connected to the literature review. So actually, the literature review should be simply saying, we grouped, we reviewed the literature, we saw these kinds of publications. And we figured out that there is a gap here, there was something missing here. And our work is coming here to address this gap or to bridge it. And therefore, we relate our work to the review
and identify the innovation of our work. Even if it was said before in the introduction, you say it again. And you show the importance and the originality of your work
in the context of the literature review. So, it's very common people here say what is the gap? What is the problem? What they could not find in the literature? Even though they reviewed it
and that this paper will come up to bridge this gap. Next is methodology. When done with the literature review, you can say here
what are some goals of message section? Present your experimental design. Provide enough detail to allow a reader to interpret your results. Give enough details for the readers how they can replicate the work. Because the methodology should be written in a way that it's replicable. You are a scientist, the productivity of your work is one of the quality criteria. So, the key to the success of the methods section
is to include the right information of detail, not too much. And to begin to sound like a laboratory. Not too much to be like a laboratory manual. It's not like you're giving me like "I woke up at nine o'clock. I did that" It's not a protocol. It's not a procedural thing. It is more kind of concise way to write what did you do
and the key step and milestones you took methodologically. So, it's very important to keep into account, don't go into detail
and don't be very generalist. Include the right amount of detail. Again, methodology, you have to put here definitions
if you have any specific definition, your research design, how you made the design of your research, how did you do your work? Did you use qualitative or quantitative methodology? Describe how did you do it?
You need to address the robustness of your methodology. Is this methodology robust or not? Is it based on protocol on a standard? Did you have a validation of the methodology? Did anybody external validate this methodology?
And what are the limitations of this methodology? According to Paradis and Zimmerman, the experimental
or methods section for an article they describe the tools and processes that enabled you to meet the stated objectives
of the introduction. So, it's very important to correspond to this description.
This section will be read for at least two major reasons. First reason reader will judge how skillfully you have designed
the empirical process of problem-solving. How you went methodologically?
Second, the reader might test your methodology against your results. So, they will read it again to check out okay,
does this result correspond to this methodology? Does it make sense? How did you get this result? As he didn't mention any methodology anything
about the expectation for this result. So, it's very important to have your clarity, accuracy,
to make sure that the methodology really makes sense and can lead to the results that you're reporting at the end of your work. Well, what are some pitfalls for methods? Providing too little information or too much information,
reiterating published methods rather than citing them, writing strictly in chronological order, maybe one step back, meaning that if you find somebody follow the methodology,
you just don't cite this work. And you just said, I made this work based on the work of somebody else,
and then you stop. No, even if you followed a methodology of another researcher,
which is totally acceptable, you have to describe this methodology in your work. And you have to cite it. Then another is writing strictly in chronological order. Some people are thinking methodology is that -
what I did since I arrived to the lab till I finished publishing the work. So, he's just mentioning everything chronological in order of
like a timeline 'I did this, I…' No, it's not the point. The point is that you highlight the key milestones, the step,
the procedural steps that were useful. You put them in order, and you communicate them to the reader.
Methods and results don't correspond. You are using a survey technique,
and then I find experimental measurements. How did you get to that discrepancy? So, this is also mistake; forgetting to use visual organizers. Methodology, if they get complex you can use visual organizers,
especially something like that. Why don't you create something called organizational chart? Or a graph that shows what is the methodology? How did you do it? What was the process so that you facilitate accessibility of your manuscript. And that readers can get excited to understand instead of making their life difficult. Protocols are not methods.
Protocol is a series of steps carried out, written in a sequential way. They are close to a checklist approach,
while methods are a series of steps already completed. So, when you write your methodology, you have to write it in the past tense.
Don't forget that. The methodology should be written in a logical order, and you have to make it intended for the reader to replicate the experiment. So, this is very important to take into account. What is the purpose of the results? Now moving to the results section,
objectively make the data, just the data. Please don't make interpretations. I don’t know why people
start to make interpretation in the results section. The results are pure results.
Some readers want to interpret your data themselves. So, please don't impose your interpretation,
the interpretation will come into discussion. So, describe the data presented in the figures.
Make it more descriptive and say what are your findings. I find this correlation. I find this information. "I found:" highlight this without giving your personal interpretation and opinion. Once we move to the discussion section, you can do that. In the result, you have to show me the evidence-based results. This result is based on evidence, real findings, solid data. You can only describe results but not explain it. I said that before, results have to be concise and reliable. And no any biography or verbose text should be present. Verbose text meaning blah, blah, you talk a lot a lot. It's not here to point. The results section should be actually one of the shortest sections because it's pure figures, illustrations, checklists, bullets,
data you came out with. Results. What differentiates the results from the methods? Methods are how the data was created.
Results is what data were accumulated. And readers expect to find the answer
to your research question in the results section. It is very important. What differentiates results from the discussion? Results is more data presentation,
while discussion is more data interpretation. That's what I wanted to say earlier,
that we distinguish interpretation from presentation and make sure that they are not on the same page. However, you still need to choose which data to present,
you will not put all the data, you have to be selective, you put the most interesting data that you find representative as results. What are some qualities of well written results section?
Methods and the result should be corresponding. This is a quality measure. Results are presented in a logical order. This is also a quality measure. Results focus on the question
or hypotheses introduced earlier in the paper. These are all criteria for a well written result. Now, what are some pitfalls when you do the Result description?
-Overstating your results. "My figure clearly shows.. we discovered" Don't exaggerate. You know, whatever you did, keep it modest. And describe it without this 'very', 'a lot', 'clearly'. This is all personal, verbose, subjective language,
try to make an objective language. You're a scientist at the end of the day. Reporting irrelevant results. Although it's sometimes useful to report experimental data. If the data is not telling anything, why should I put it? It's not about showing that you make work and effort. We know that you did an effort,
but it is also your intelligence to not waste your time and our time as reviewers or readers. And you select actually the key important results. Omit any visual organizers such as subheads and including inappropriate illustrations. So, big problems and results, not taking enough time to make a good understandable
visual graphic representation figure or table or not having an organizational chart or not having visuals
that support the presentation of the results. And for sure, including methods or discussion in the results section. Well it is done. We are done with the results. We move to the discussion. In discussion, you start the interpretation, you start the validation,
how did you validate your work? Did you compare the simulation results, for example, was data measured? How did you calibrate your model? How did you use case studies to validate your hypothesis? You are claiming you developed an indicator or a tool or a methodology
or a solution or whatever you did. Did you validate it? It is here the time to talk with me as a reader tell me
what did you do to test that what you claim is correct. So, it's very important to do that. And it's very important to do something called triangulation. Triangulation meaning that you check the subjectivity of your work. If you use a technique, it maybe you could use another technique. If he did simulation, can we do experimentation? If you do the survey, you can do questionnaires and so on. It's not always easy to do triangulation. This is related to the research methods. But as much as you can try to follow the triangulation
to avoid bias and to avoid subjectivity. And don't be always so happy about what you did. You have to be more critical and doubting if this is really valuable and proper, representative, objective, tangible or not. Still in the discussion, this is the internal validity and external validity. If this research is repeated, can we have the same results? This is one of the discussions you can work on. Can this result be generalized or not? Is it only restricted to this population or to this group of people or samples? It is very important to discuss that. You need to have a critical assessment. Provide critical review of the work regarding the methodology
and the results. The implications of the work, what are the implications? Now, we have these results. We have discussed them. What are the implications on the society?
What are the implications on the audience? What is the expected impact of this work?
What can this work contribute at the end? And how can we make it applicable
and connect it to reality to industry and so on. And what are the study limitations?
You have to compare your work with other state of art. You have to say - what did others do?
Does this result make sense or not? And finally, you can move on to the conclusion.
Something not more than 800 words. It’s a summary with the highlights, summary of the work and results,
describing the strengths and weakness of the results. Position work in the larger perspective and the work contribution
and the future work. So, this is for the conclusion section.
Conclusions are a brief summary of discussion. You can make things concrete by emphasizing them,
through discussing the limitations, discussing the advantages, and discussing the applications related to your major findings. Last part, people sometimes forget it.
Here is the time to acknowledge any funding agency. If you got money to come, to travel, to go, to do this research, if it's part of a project,
there is zero-tolerance not to mention the funding organization. You must mention the funding organization. It is here that you should it. Secondly, you should mention all people who contributed
to this work in person who helped you to acquire this project. Mention funding organization. Mention those who contributed in person,
those who did not write the paper with you but at least inspired you in a way or another or gave you input to information. Finally, we reach the references and there is a video
on citation and bibliography. This is how it looks. You have to follow a certain standard. I always advise you to use the APA
and use a software called Zotero for citation. But you can watch this in the video. The citation should list all these references
based on protocol of citation of journal. And this is the end of today's presentation. By this you have an idea of the structure,
what is the expectation of the journal paper. Maybe as a final piece of advice,
I advise you to read a journal paper that you like, that you feel very close to what you want to do. And from there, you start to develop your own journal publication. I would like to ask you finally, to subscribe to my channel. If you like the video, like it, you can comment, you can ask questions. If you have suggestions for future videos, don’t hesitate to contact me. And by that, I would like to thank you for your attention and I hope you know more now about how to write a journal paper. Thank you very much for your attention.
