All categories/Research
Research
Topics, literature, methods, writing, submission. Why would this conclusion hold.
35 entries here · one process per category, checkpoints written per job
- Topic: from interesting to finishableA topic too large and advice to narrow it.
- Research question: falsifiable in one sentenceA grand research question that cannot be operationalised.
- Literature review: the argument, not the consensusRead a lot and produced a list.
- Methods: survey, interview, or experimentUnsure which method answers the question.
- Sampling: does it representA convenience sample and doubt about generalisation.
- Measurement: are you measuring what you thinkA borrowed scale of unknown fit for my population.
- Interview guide: process, not opinionGuides full of 'how do you feel' and yielding nothing.
- Experiment design: what the control doesA control group that does nothing.
- Ethics: what needs approval firstPersonal data involved and uncertainty about ethics review.
- Pre-registration: fixing the plan firstConsidering pre-registration to strengthen credibility.
- Causal claims: what licenses themA correlation in observational data and an urge to call it causal.
- Threats to validity: what would break itThe paper is drafted and the weak points need finding.
- Secondary data: can it answer my questionA public dataset and a question in mind.
- Case study: what one case can showOne case and a challenge about generalisation.
- Mixed methods: joining the strandsSurvey and interviews that read as two separate papers.
- Longitudinal: handling attritionThirty percent lost by the second wave.
- Reviewer response: disagreeing wellA reviewer comment I disagree with.
- Abstract: five sentencesAn abstract that reads like an introduction.
- Introduction: narrowing to your questionA long introduction with no clear question.
- Methods: reproducible by a strangerMethods too vague to reproduce.
- Results: table, then one sentenceResults that recite every number.
- Discussion: explanation and rival explanationsA discussion that repeats the results.
- Limitations: honest and proportionateAfraid to write limitations.
- Figures: one message eachFigures dense with information and unclear in message.
- Title: findable and understandableAn abstract title that peers cannot find.
- Cover letter: three sentences to the editorNo idea what a cover letter should say.
- Responding to reviewers: point by pointA long list of reviewer comments.
- Proposal: passing in three daysA proposal due before the thinking is done.
- Grant application: significance as deliverablesA significance section full of air.
- Conference talk: one finding in fifteen minutesA conference talk with a mixed audience.
- Poster: a three-minute walkthroughA conference poster and no layout sense.
- Review article: mapping the fieldA review that turns into an annotated bibliography.
- Data availability: writing the statementA required data availability statement.
- Authorship: who and in what orderDisagreement over authorship order.
- Language editing: readable for reviewersFeedback that the English needs native editing.
Try another category
- Writing and copy47
- Office and documents52
- Data and analysis50
- Code and debugging50
- Learning and exams47
- Life and decisions53
- Agents and automation48
- Image and video45
- Job hunting30
- Workplace communication39
- Marketing and growth36
- E-commerce36
- Teaching and training36
- Translation and localisation28
- Legal and contracts35
- Finance and operations35
- Product and design39
- Health35
- Customer support48
- Hiring and people ops48
- Social and content ops47
- Engineering and manufacturing48
- Security and operations48