You carried a dissertation across the finish line: chapters, appendices, sprawling literature maps, and every robustness check you could think of. Now you’re stepping into a different game. Journals don’t reward breadth; they reward one sharp claim, argued clearly, with only the evidence that claim needs. That shift, from “cover everything” to “prove one thing”, is what I mean by article-first thinking. It begins with the reader, not the chapters. Who will find this result useful? What single, arguable contribution will make them care right now? Strong journal articles have a spine: a focused argument, framed against a small set of key papers, and moved along by lean methods and crisp results (Belcher, 2019; Thomson & Kamler, 2013).

This mindset helps you dodge the most common mistake: sending a journal a “dissertation summary.” Reviewers spot it in a paragraph. A summary tries to bring the whole thesis along for the ride; a publishable article chooses. It picks one slice of the research and builds a self-contained paper around it, tight, testable, and readable on its own terms (Bowen, 2010). Choosing is not a loss; it’s a strategy. You’re not throwing work away. You’re sequencing it, so each article stands up on its own and points to the next piece.

There’s also a practical reason to think article-first: most doctoral programs train researchers more than they train authors. We learn how to design studies, gather data, and argue with care; we don’t always learn how to craft a paper that moves through peer review efficiently. The result is a slow, stressful first submission that tries to do too much. Learning about article writing, fitting your claim to a journal’s scope, trimming methods to the reproducible minimum, and communicating results without drowning readers, shortens that ramp and improves acceptance odds (Nolan & Rocco, 2009; Belcher, 2019).

Seen this way, your dissertation isn’t a liability. It’s a deep reservoir that lets you write with confidence. Article-first thinking simply channels that reservoir into a paper an editor can place and reviewers can say yes to, because it’s immediately clear what you claim, why it matters in this journal, and how you’ve shown it (Thomson & Kamler, 2013; Bowen, 2010).

Audience & Claim Design: Choosing the One Idea That Deserves

The fastest way to turn a dissertation into a publishable article is to make one promise to one audience and then keep it. That means forgetting, for a moment, all the good things in the thesis and asking a smaller, sharper research question: who will read this paper, and what single idea will make them keep reading?  Start by naming a real readership. Not “the field.” Not “scholars everywhere.” Pick the group that cares most about your result: subfield specialists, qualitative or quantitative methodologists, or a practice community. Read the last year of your target journals and listen to what they are arguing about now. Note the questions that recur, the methods they trust, and the moves authors use to position a gap. You are not just adding a brick to a wall; you are stepping into an exchange and taking a stand.

With a live audience in mind, you can write the paper’s topic : a single, arguable claim stated in one sentence. A good claim makes a specific contribution and names its boundary conditions. It is not a topic (“effects of X on Y”) or a list (“we examine A, B, and C”). It tells the reader what changes in what setting and by how much, or what mechanism holds under which conditions, and it hints at why that finding matters (Bem, 2004; Whetten, 1989). If you can’t say the claim aloud without glancing at your notes, it is too vague. Trim it until it can fit on a sticky note.

Now pressure-test that claim. Ask what would count as a serious challenge and whether your evidence can meet it. This does not mean you need to run every robustness check in your thesis. It means you identify the key threats and show, briefly, why the claim survives them. The point is not perfection; it’s credibility. You are offering a claim that could, in principle, be wrong, and you are showing why, on the balance of the best evidence you have, it holds (Popper, 1959; Day & Gastel, 2012). This mindset keeps the paper honest and stops you from promising more than you can deliver in an article.

Positioning comes next. Place your claim against a few close papers, not the entire literature review. Think of it as drawing a small map, not writing a travel guide. What do those papers already do? Where do they fall short for your audience? What is the delta, your specific, testable difference, that makes your article worth a slot in this journal right now? This is where you move beyond “there is a gap” to “here is the precise opening and here is why it matters”. Keep the tone collegial. You are building on peers, not knocking them down.

Once the claim and positioning are set, budget your evidence. Write down the minimum set of quantitative and qualitative analyses, tables, and figures needed to carry the argument from start to finish. Anything that doesn’t move the claim, no matter how interesting, goes to an online supplement or waits for a second paper. This “evidence budget” is not stingy; it is disciplined. It protects your reader’s attention and gives your main result room to be seen (Belcher, 2019; Booth et al., 2016). A simple rule helps: if two displays make the same point, merge them; if an analysis raises more questions than it answers, either resolve them or leave them out.

Language matters, too. Claims are easier to understand when you use verbs that signal action and scope. “Shows,” “tests,” “estimates,” “explains,” “identifies,” and “qualifies” are better than “addresses” or “explores.” Concrete numbers beat vague praise. If your readers care about effect size, tell them. If they care about the mechanism, name it. If they care about boundary conditions, mark them in plain terms. Good writing here is not decoration; it is part of the contribution because it makes the claim legible to the audience that needs it (Bem, 2004; Day & Gastel, 2012).

To keep yourself honest, draft a short contribution statement. In three or four sentences, name the problem statement your readers face, the opening in current knowledge, your one-sentence claim, and the most important implication. Tape those paragraphs above your desk. Every section of the paper should serve it. When you are tempted to expand the scope, look back at the problem statement and ask whether the new material helps your real readers see and trust the claim. If it doesn’t, cut it now rather than in revision (Belcher, 2019; Booth et al., 2016).

By the end of this step, you should know exactly who you are talking to, what you are promising, and what proof is essential. With that clarity, structure stops being guesswork. You can now shape the paper around the argument rather than around dissertation chapters. In the next section, we’ll turn this focused idea into a clean, journal-ready architecture by mapping the thesis material onto a tight IMRaD skeleton that moves the reader from problem to proof without detours.

Structural Surge: Mapping Chapters to a Publishable IMRaD Skeleton

A dissertation is built to show the full span of your thinking. A journal article is built to move a reader from a problem to a result with as little friction as possible. Making that jump is structural work. It means taking the long, chaptered arc of the thesis and fitting it to the tight IMRaD frame, Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion, so each part earns its keep and nothing slows the line (Belcher, 2019; Day & Gastel, 2012).

Begin with the Introduction, not the Literature Review. In a thesis, you trace the field; in an article, you join a conversation at speed. Swales’s CARS model is a useful mental checklist: establish the territory, point to a live gap, then occupy that gap with your paper’s purpose and claim (Swales & Feak, 2012). Keep it short, about a tenth of the manuscript. Name the problem your readers care about, show the specific opening in recent work, and state what your paper does to fill it. You do not need every citation you used in the thesis. Two to six of the most relevant, recent papers are usually enough to frame the niche and show you are current. End the Introduction with a clear, one-sentence aim or hypothesis and a brief road map of what follows. That last sentence helps editors and reviewers trust that the paper is going somewhere on purpose.

Shift next to Methods. Here, credibility depends on clarity, not on volume. Give readers what they need to reproduce or audit the work: design, qualitative or quantitative data source, and time frame, key variables or constructs, analytic approach, and the few validity checks that matter for your claim. Move specialist detail, variable coding lists, instrument wording, low-stakes robustness checks, and long equations into a supplement or repository and cite it in-text (“see Supplement A for…”) (Day & Gastel, 2012; Glasman-Deal, 2010). Name any reporting standard your field recognizes so reviewers see you are aligned from the start; when relevant, point to a checklist such as SAMPL for statistical reporting so your numbers are interpretable and complete (Lang & Altman, 2013). Keep the prose concrete and past tense. Methods are a record of what you did, not a tour of everything you could have done.

Results should read like answers, not like a travelogue of analyses. Lead each paragraph with the point, then show the evidence. Organize the section around your research questions or hypotheses in the same order you announced them in the Introduction, so readers never wonder where they are. Let figures and tables carry the load, but never make them repeat each other. If a figure tells the story, the table can live in the supplement. Use figure-first drafting: sketch three or four visuals that could stand alone at a talk, then write the Results for those visuals. Give each display an informative title and a caption that states the takeaway in a single, plain sentence. Prefer effect sizes and confidence intervals over p-value chasing so readers can judge practical meaning (Weissgerber et al., 2015; Lang & Altman, 2013). Strip away decorative chart junk. White space and simple axes beat heavy borders every time.

The Discussion closes the loop. Start by answering the research question in plain speech before you widen the lens. Then interpret: what mechanism or explanation best fits the pattern you found, and how does it sit next to the closest papers you cited in the Introduction? Keep the comparison selective; you are positioning, not surveying. Mark limits without apology. A good limitation names the boundary of the claim and points to a concrete next step rather than undermining the whole study. Close with implications for the audience you picked earlier, practice, policy, theory, or method, and resist the urge to add new results here (Belcher, 2019; Day & Gastel, 2012). One clean paragraph on what should change, who should care, and what evidence would be most useful next is stronger than a grab bag of possibilities.

Across all four sections, coherence comes from signposting and sentence design. Use headings and subheadings that say what a section does rather than labels that only name content. Open paragraphs with topic sentences that make a claim, not with background. Keep “given” information first and new information in the stress position at the end of sentences, where readers expect the punch line. This small shift cuts, rereads, and improves flow (Gopen & Swan, 1990). After drafting, do a quick reverse outline in the margin: one short sentence per paragraph. If the backbone you see there does not match the aim you set in the Introduction, cut or move paragraphs until it does.

To make the discussion in the article flow, translate the thesis parts into the article parts one by one. The long literature review becomes a tight opening that frames the gap and the claim. A full theory chapter becomes one or two focused paragraphs that name the mechanism you will test, or a simple conceptual figure. The methods chapter becomes a reproducible minimum with a signpost to the supplement. Multiple results chapters collapse into a small set of displays, each tied to a stated hypothesis, each with one clear message. The concluding chapter becomes the Discussion: answer, interpret, limit, and look ahead. Every move is about shortening the distance between the problem and the proof.

Once this skeleton is in place, you will see where the paper is still heavy. That is the moment to compress methods and reframe results so only the essentials remain. The next section gets practical about those cuts and choices: what to keep in the main text, what to move to a supplement, and how to present findings so readers grasp the claim without getting lost.

Methods Compression & Results Reframing: From Exhaustive to Essential

A dissertation invites you to show everything you tried. A journal article asks for the shortest, clearest path from question to claim. The move from exhaustive to essential starts in the Methods. Your goal is a reproducible minimum: enough detail for a careful reader to understand what you did and to repeat it, without dragging them through every fork in the road. Name the design, the data source, and time frame, the way you defined and measured key variables, and the analysis plan you actually used. Keep the prose concrete and past tense. Save the throat clearing for the supplement.

Compression does not mean being vague. It means pointing to depth without parking it in the main text. Long codebooks, survey wording, variable construction, and robustness code belong in an online repository or appendix with a clean in-text signpost (“details in Supplement A”). This balances readability with transparency and speeds review because the essentials are visible while the audit trail is still available (Day & Gastel, 2012). Align with a reporting checklist early and say so. If you ran a randomized trial, follow CONSORT; if you wrote a systematic review, follow PRISMA; if you reported observational work, follow STROBE. These frameworks tell you and your reviewers what “complete” looks like and help you cut safely without losing credibility (Moher et al., 2010; Page et al., 2021; von Elm et al., 2007). For statistics, SAMPL is a practical guardrail: report effect sizes and intervals, describe models plainly, and avoid dumping raw p-value lists (Lang & Altman, 2013).

Two small habits make compressed Methods feel trustworthy. First, flag any pre-registration or analysis plan and note deviations in a sentence. Readers do not expect perfection; they expect honesty. Second, include a short qualitative and quantitative data and code availability note. One line with a stable link beats a paragraph of promises. Both moves keep the main text lean while showing you take openness seriously.

Results need a different kind of trimming. In a thesis, Results often read like a travel diary: what you tried, in the order you tried it. In an article, the Results should read like answers. Lead with the claim-relevant finding, then show the evidence. Organize the section around the research questions you stated in the Introduction, and keep the order consistent so the reader never has to re-map your argument midstream. Say what changes, by how much, and for whom, in plain speech before you send the reader to a table or figure.

Use figures and tables to carry the load, but never let them echo each other. If a figure tells the story, move the duplicative table to the supplement. Collapse overlapping displays. A single panel figure with clear labels often replaces three near-identical plots. Keep titles informative and captions declarative so a skim conveys the takeaway. Prefer effect sizes and confidence intervals over significance stars. If you must discuss p-values, frame them as one piece of the picture and guard against selective reporting and “star gazing.” Reviewers now expect emphasis on magnitude and uncertainty, not threshold chasing (Lang & Altman, 2013; Wasserstein & Lazar, 2016). Avoid chart junk. Simple axes and open space make your results legible and persuasive.

Mark the line between primary and exploratory results. Label secondary analyses as such. If you tried many specifications, explain the logic for the main one and park the rest in the supplement. If multiple testing is a real risk, say how you handled it or why it does not change your interpretation. This framing invites trust: you show range without letting the paper drift (Lang & Altman, 2013; Page et al., 2021). Keep interpretation in check inside the Results. Save the mechanism and broader meaning for the Discussion so that this section stays clean and scan-friendly.

As you cut, protect two kinds of sentences. Keep one sentence that translates the number into plain language for your audience (“The policy reduced wait times by about eight minutes per visit”). And keep one sentence that sets a boundary (“The effect holds for clinics with weekend hours and is smaller elsewhere”). Those lines anchor the reader’s memory and set up honest limits later. Everything else must earn its place by moving the claim forward.

If you follow these rules, reproducible minimum in Methods, answer-first writing in Results, figures that do real work, and a clear line between primary and exploratory, you will end up with a paper that reads fast and holds up under scrutiny. That is the heart of “essential.” With the core trimmed and visible, you are ready for the front-end decisions that prevent desk rejections. Next, we will match your article to the right journal and lock down compliance, word limits, figure caps, reporting standards, and ethics, before you ever click submit.

Journal Targeting & Compliance: Fit, Standards, and Ethical Readiness

Before you hit submit, choose a journal that can actually say yes to your paper. Start with fit. Read the aims and scope, then skim the last year of issues to see what problems the journal treats as live, what methods it trusts, and what kinds of papers it is promoting right now. If your claim and evidence look like a natural next step in that conversation, you’re in the right lane; if you have to contort your framing to make it seem relevant, look elsewhere (Belcher, 2019). Fit also includes the article type. Many journals offer brief reports, full articles, methods notes, or letters, each with its own length and display caps. A strong study in the wrong format dies at the desk. Check the limits early, word count, reference caps, figure and table allowances, and any page charges, so you can shape the manuscript before it ever reaches an editor (Day & Gastel, 2012).

Once the venue looks right, line up the reporting standards. Editors use checklists because they speed peer review and reduce preventable errors. Pick the framework that matches your design and build to it from the start. CONSORT for randomized trials, PRISMA for systematic reviews, and STROBE for observational studies are the common anchors, and they come with item-by-item expectations for what belongs in the paper and what can live in a supplement (Moher et al., 2010; Page et al., 2021; von Elm et al., 2007). For statistics, follow SAMPL: report effect sizes and intervals, describe models in plain language, and avoid threshold chasing (Lang & Altman, 2013). If your field has its own equivalents, the EQUATOR Network’s library will point you to them so you’re not guessing at completeness (Simera et al., 2010). When you state in the cover letter that you followed the relevant guidelines and attach the checklist, you make it easy for an editor to send the paper out for review.

Open science choices now affect targeting. Some journals encourage preprints; others have conditions; a few still resist. Many require data and code sharing on acceptance, with exceptions for privacy or licensing. The safest lane is to decide early: will you post a preprint, and where will you host materials so they are citable and stable? Repositories that mint a DOI simplify life for editors and readers. If your field values transparency norms more broadly, the TOP Guidelines give you a clear set of practices, data citation, analytic reproducibility, and preregistration that you can adopt and then advertise in your submission materials (Nosek et al., 2015). These choices signal seriousness, and they also reduce back-and-forth at the proof stage.

Ethics is not boilerplate. If humans or animals were involved, name your IRB or ethics committee, approval number if applicable, and the consent procedure you used. If you relied on secondary data, state the license and any restrictions on reuse. If you reproduce images, figures, or instruments, get permission before submission and cite the source in the caption. Declare funding and competing interests plainly, using the journal’s form or the ICMJE statement if requested; the point is to give dissertation editors and readers a clear view of potential influences (ICMJE, 2024). Most journals also ask for author contributions. Use the CRediT taxonomy so roles are transparent and disputes are less likely later (Brand et al., 2015). If you are unsure about a grey area, COPE’s guidance gives editors and authors a shared playbook for handling conflicts, duplicate submission, and prior publication so you don’t stumble into an avoidable ethics problem (COPE Council, 2019).

Pull all of this into a one-page comparison sheet for three to five target journals. Note scope alignment, article types, limits, reporting guidelines, data and code policies, preprint stance, ethics language, and fees. Rank the list, choose a first home, and tailor the manuscript to that home, titles, keywords, and examples included. Most desk rejections come from poor fit or missed instructions, not from fatal flaws in the science (Day & Gastel, 2012). Getting the match right and clearing the compliance bar gives your paper a clean runway.

With the venue chosen and requirements locked, you can turn outward and polish what editors and reviewers see first. Next comes your publication kit: a title that signals the claim, an abstract that gives the payoff fast, a set of keywords that make the right readers find you, a cover letter that frames a fit, and a clean submission package that leaves no reason to hesitate at the desk.

Publication Kit & Submission Strategy: Everything the Editor Sees First

Editors make quick calls. Your job is to put the strongest version of your paper in front of them, starting with the pieces they see before a single review is assigned: the title, the abstract, the keywords, and the cover letter, bundled in a clean submission file set. Think of this as your storefront. If it is clear, specific, and aligned with the journal’s conversation, you earn a fast send-out rather than a desk rejection.

Begin with the title. Make it informative rather than clever, and load it with the terms your audience searches. Specific nouns and active verbs beat vague phrases. Titles that signal design or population help editors place the work at a glance, and they help readers find you later. A short main clause plus a clarifying subtitle works well when you need both scope and context, but resist stacking too many clauses (Day & Gastel, 2012; Hartley, 2008). If you can read the title aloud in one breath and know what the paper claims, you are close.

The abstract is a miniature article. Follow a simple arc: the live problem, the gap in recent work, the design in a line, the main qualitative or quantitative results with numbers, and the key implication for this journal’s readers. Structured abstracts make this easier and are linked to better retrieval and, in some fields, more citations because they surface the right keywords and facts for indexing (Hartley, 2004; Day & Gastel, 2012). Avoid undefined acronyms and value words like “novel” without evidence. If your field expects effect sizes and confidence intervals, include them. Editors and reviewers want to see what changed, by how much, and for whom, fast.

Choose keywords with the same care. Borrow from the language of your target journal and the indexing terms common in the last year of articles. Echo the nouns in your title and abstract so search engines and databases can triangulate on your topic. If your field uses controlled vocabularies (such as MeSH in biomedicine), align with them; if not, favor the most widely used phrasing over lab jargon (Belcher, 2019).

Keep the cover letter brief and useful. State that the manuscript is original and not under consideration elsewhere, name the article type, give one sentence on the contribution and why it fits the journal’s scope now, and confirm compliance with ethics, data, and reporting standards. If the journal invites suggested reviewers, offer names with institutional emails and declare any conflicts; if there are authors to exclude, give a short, factual reason. You are not pitching a book. You are making it easy for an editor to say, “This belongs in our queue” (ICMJE, 2024; COPE Council, 2019).

Package the files cleanly. Follow the Guide for Authors’ word limits and figure caps. Upload a blinded manuscript if required, with a separate title page carrying author details, affiliations, ORCID IDs, and contributions using the CRediT taxonomy. Include reporting checklists (CONSORT/PRISMA/STROBE as relevant), the data and code availability statement with a stable link, and high-resolution figures with readable text. Consistent terminology between the manuscript, abstract, and metadata prevents indexing errors and saves back-and-forth later (Brand et al., 2015; Moher et al., 2010; Page et al., 2021; von Elm et al., 2007).

Do one last alignment pass before you click submit. Compare your title, abstract, and keywords to the journal’s recent table of contents. If a busy editor can skim those three elements and know the claim, the audience, and the method, you have done the packaging right. From here, the process shifts to managing peer review with calm and speed. The next section lays out a simple 90-day plan to handle outcomes, desk rejections, revise-and-resubmits, and final acceptance, without losing momentum.

Conclusion

The move from dissertation to article is not about shrinking your work; it’s about sharpening its purpose. Article-first thinking asks you to pick one idea that matters to a specific readership, state it cleanly, and prove it with only the evidence that carries weight. Once you see the project this way, the rest follows with less strain: you map the thesis into a tight IMRaD frame, keep methods at the reproducible minimum, let figures do real work in the results, choose a journal where your claim belongs right now, and package the submission so an editor can act without hesitation.

Treat publishing as a craft, not luck. Use routines that lower friction, an evidence budget, a figure-first storyboard, a short contribution statement taped above your desk, a journal comparison sheet, and a 90-day cadence for submissions and revisions. These habits keep you close to the claim and focused on readers instead of drifting back into “cover everything.” They also help you write with the kind of stance reviewers reward: positioned within a live conversation, clear on boundaries, and explicit about what changes in the world if your finding holds.

Your best next step is simple: ship the strongest idea, not the whole thesis. If you want a fast, clean path to submission, our academic editing services pair you with experienced dissertation editors who tighten your IMRaD flow, refine claims, and polish language, including precise APA editing where required. You keep ownership of the work; we remove the friction.

If you need hands-on momentum, we offer tailored dissertation help with a dedicated dissertation coach. This includes focused dissertation assistance to sharpen arguments, design figures that carry weight, and trim methods to the reproducible minimum, exactly the support most authors mean when they ask for help with a dissertation or end-to-end dissertation services. We meet you where you are and drive toward a clear, journal-ready manuscript.

Ready to move from draft to decision? Our dissertation help service and expert dissertation consulting set your timeline, align the paper to the right journal, and package the submission so editors can say yes. Reach out, and let’s turn the work you’ve already done into an article that travels.

References

Belcher, W. L. (2019). Writing your journal article in twelve weeks: A guide to academic publishing success (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press.

Bem, D. J. (2004). Writing the empirical journal article. In M. J. Prinstein & M. D. Patterson (Eds.), The portable mentor: Expert guide to a successful career in psychology (pp. 7–22). Springer.

Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., & Williams, J. M. (2016). The craft of research (4th ed.). University of Chicago Press.

Bowen, G. A. (2010). From qualitative dissertation to quality articles: Seven lessons learned. The Qualitative Report, 15(4), 864–879.

Brand, A., Allen, L., Altman, M., Hlava, M., & Scott, J. (2015). Beyond authorship: Attribution, contribution, collaboration, and credit. Learned Publishing, 28(2), 151–155.

COPE Council. (2019). COPE guidelines: A short guide to ethical editing for new editors. Committee on Publication Ethics.

Day, R. A., & Gastel, B. (2012). How to write and publish a scientific paper (7th ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Glasman-Deal, H. (2010). Science research writing for non-native speakers of English. Imperial College Press.

Gopen, G. D., & Swan, J. A. (1990). The science of scientific writing. American Scientist, 78(6), 550–558.

Hartley, J. (2004). Current findings from research on structured abstracts. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 92(3), 368–371.

Hartley, J. (2008). Academic titles in scholarly articles: Analysis and recommendations. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 38(2), 203–213.

ICMJE. (2024). Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.

Lang, T., & Altman, D. G. (2013). Basic statistical reporting for articles published in biomedical journals: The SAMPL guidelines. In Science Editors’ Handbook. European Association of Science Editors.

Locke, K., & Golden-Biddle, K. (1997). Constructing opportunities for contribution: Structuring intertextual coherence and “problematizing” in organizational studies. Academy of Management Journal, 40(5), 1023–1062.

Moher, D., Hopewell, S., Schulz, K. F., Montori, V., Gøtzsche, P. C., Devereaux, P. J., Elbourne, D., Egger, M., & Altman, D. G. (2010). CONSORT 2010 statement: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. BMJ, 340, c332.

Nolan, R., & Rocco, T. S. (2009). Teaching graduate students in the social sciences writing for publication. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20(2), 267–273.

Nosek, B. A., Alter, G., Banks, G. C., Borsboom, D., Bowman, S. D., … Yarkoni, T. (2015). Promoting an open research culture. Science, 348(6242), 1422–1425.

Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71.

Popper, K. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. Hutchinson.

Simera, I., Moher, D., Hirst, A., Hoey, J., Schulz, K. F., & Altman, D. G. (2010). Transparent and accurate reporting increases reliability, utility, and impact of your research: Reporting guidelines and the EQUATOR Network. BMC Medicine, 8, 24.

Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2012). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills (3rd ed.). University of Michigan Press.

Thomson, P., & Kamler, B. (2013). Writing for peer reviewed journals: Strategies for getting published. Routledge.

von Elm, E., Altman, D. G., Egger, M., Pocock, S. J., Gøtzsche, P. C., & Vandenbroucke, J. P. (2007). The STROBE statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies. PLoS Medicine, 4(10), e296.

Wasserstein, R. L., & Lazar, N. A. (2016). The ASA’s statement on p-values: Context, process, and purpose. The American Statistician, 70(2), 129–133.

Weissgerber, T. L., Milic, N. M., Winham, S. J., & Garovic, V. D. (2015). Beyond bar and line graphs: Time for a new data presentation. PLOS Biology, 13(4), e1002128.

Whetten, D. A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 490–495.