Some Thoughts about What Makes A Good Article

Firstly, a good article must start with having a good introduction. It needs to engage the readers with the manuscript content, and convince readers about the contributions and values of it. A strong theoretical rationale is required to justify the need for the research. For the case studies, a very brief introduction of the study context is also indispensable. Simply saying that “the research topic is interesting” or “no such research has been done so far” are not strong justifications. It is most often the methodology that receives the most intense criticism from reviewers. One major criticism is the lack of theoretical support to the methodology selected. For example, how is your questionnaire developed? Is it based on literature review or directly extracted from other sources? Also, how do you measure for example the degree of employees’ involvement at work? What analytical tool or dimensions do you use? Are they based on literature review? Another major criticism is the weak explanation of the method being used. The reason for selecting a particular research method is often missing and I find that some authors are purposely hiding what they perceive as weaknesses in their method. Since the data collection and data analysis method employed in the study have important implications for the interpretations of the findings, authors therefore have to give more details of the methodology used. A good methodology is often based on getting the theory right in the literature review section. For the results section, it should provide the initial answers to the research questions. It is vital to always link the research objectives to the result findings and not to lose track. A piece of research might have a lot of research findings, it is always good to summarize the findings in tables and present them in a more concise way. I find tables and charts particularly useful for summarizing findings which complements the writing. The discussion part is one of the hardest sections for me to write. This part, however, plays a crucial role in evaluating a manuscript. This discussion section often requires the author to summarize the research findings and discuss how these findings contribute to the knowledge and managerial practice. Therefore, a good discussion should/must encompass an objective interpretation of the research findings; the significant contribution of the findings to the existing body of literature and their managerial implications must be clearly stated and conveyed.