Pitfalls to Avoid in Conducting and Describing Scholarly Research

Abstract

Authors frequently criticize editors and referees because they think the negative evaluations of their book or journal manuscripts are inaccurate, biased, or insufficiently justified. Some reviews are problematic or even unfair, although negative evaluations typically stem from real failures that could be eliminated with more care at point in the research and writing process. obligations of manuscript editors and referees are frequently discussed, but what are some of the responsibilities of authors? What are some of the pitfalls they can avoid to improve their chances for publication? A few pitfalls that I, as referee, encourage authors to avoid are discussed in detail by Earl Babbie, Mary John Smith, James Startt and William Sloan, and Roger Wimmer and Joseph Dominick, among others. pitfalls include: Careless writing Manuscripts must be error-free, to the extent that human beings can make anything error-free. Typographical errors, spelling mistakes, and grammatical lapses can cause a referee to question a writer's competency. One wonders about more fundamental research elements (e.g., the accuracy of literature cited) when an author is careless. An error-free manuscript does not guarantee a positive recommendation, but it does establish credibility and it does not make a referee suspect (and search for) inaccuracy. Writing that is rambling, wordy, unfocused, or pretentious can lead, sometimes unfairly, to a recommendation for rejection. This kind of writing could drive a referee to substance abuse: The literature that this writer reviewed seemed to suggest most clearly that the myriad of variables that various authors tried to identify and to measure were not the primary variables that one should study if one is to reach meaningful and valid conclusions about the phenomenon under scrutiny. This is typical of the thousands of bad sentences I have read over the years. author should simply state, The literature suggests researchers have studied the wrong variables. Editors and referees also are less than impressed with manuscripts whose authors do not observe the appropriate style; few enjoy spending an afternoon repairing someone else's footnotes, for example. And many dislike, or are offended by, sexist language. Most book and journal editors, in fact, specify in their instructions to contributors that sexist language must be avoided. Some authors contend that eliminating sexist language produces poor writing (e.g., a non-sexist manuscript will contain too many of those awful he or she phrases). poor writer might indeed have a problem eliminating sexist language, but I have read many good writers who do not. One frequently is able to replace he or she with the, or to use a plural noun and pronoun, as in, The students brought their books, rather than, each student brought his book. Writers must avoid at all costs, Each student brought their book. writer's intent is admirable, but the language usage is stupendously awful. Unspecified assumptions Major assumptions must be specified in manuscripts because assumptions can have a profound impact on many aspects of the research process, including the ways in which variables are selected and defined; research questions and hypotheses are posed; coding sheets, interview schedules, or questionnaires are developed; participant observers are trained; archival data are used; and results are interpreted. A study may well produce misleading or inaccurate results if a researcher assumes, for instance, that newspaper publishers accurately perceive the extent to which social control is imposed in their newsrooms and that there is no need to solicit the views of editors and reporters. Publishers, in reality, may not know or wish to admit that social control is imposed in the newsroom. I had a bright graduate student many years ago who assumed media were biased against his country and that U. …