are encouraging you to follow their recommendations and submit the revised version for possible publication in the future. Whether ETR&D is still an option for the revision will be the decision of the editor based on his/her evaluation and those of the three reviews. If so, the editor will specifically invite resubmission; if not, encouragement will typically be given (and sometimes actual recommendations) for trying a different journal (e.g., one that is less rigorous, more applied, more aligned with the topic, etc.). The last option for the reviewer is Reject. While this recommendation is a disappointment as the editor has decided not to publish your manuscript, again you will receive recommendations and often suggestions for submitting to other journals.

Once all the reviews are received, the editor will consider them collectively along with his/her own judgments, and make a final decision. In nearly all cases, “accept” decisions will require some revisions, as suggested by the review process. Let's turn below to some suggested strategies for increasing your chances of receiving a positive review.

Guidelines for Writing and Submitting Manuscripts

Your research is completed, comments from your AECT presentation were favorable, and now you'd like to see your study published. Don't write the final draft yet. First, some planning is needed.

Selecting the Right Journal

Your first important decision is to select an appropriate journal. Journals differ considerably in their orientations and standards for quality. No matter how well written your manuscript may be, unless it provides a good fit with the particular journal, it will probably not be accepted. In fact, the only review you may receive is from the editor informing you of inappropriateness. This paper, for example, should be quite appropriate for Tech Trends, but it is not well suited for, say, the Journal of Educational Psychologyor ETR&D. Both of the latter demand, among other things, a more research- and literature-based orientation than what is Tech Trends. Further, the Journal of Educational Psychology is much more selective than most research journals, since it is published by the American Psychological Association (APA) and receives a very high volume of manuscripts for review. On the other hand, ETR&D, a more specialized journal, will favor studies relating to certain domains, such as educational technology and instructional design, but might reject an article on the sociological organization of the classroom. Similarly, a journal like the Quarterly Review of Distance Educationpublishes manuscripts on interaction in distance education; however, they are less likely to publish an article on interaction in a traditional classroom. Successful authors learn to make good selections of publication outlets, and not waste time having their manuscripts reviewed (and rejected) by inappropriate journals.
Here are some quick tips for making your selection:

• Identify alternative publication outlets based on your familiarity with journals in your field, recommendations by colleagues, and journals identified in related studies. Each time we receive a mailing about a new journal, we file it as a possible publication source.
• Obtain a recent issue of each journal and read the “information for authors.” Most university libraries allow online access to a number of journals in our field. Also, examine several articles published in the journal to obtain impressions about the styles and orientations expected.
• If you have any questions about a particular journal, email the editor, who will generally be happy to give further information about the journal’s interests, style preferences, acceptance rates, and evaluation criteria. An editor can indicate if he/she thinks your manuscript is appropriate for submission to the journal if you provide a very brief description or title.

Speaking the Language

Based on your review of the selected journal, write the final version of the manuscript to fit that journal’s style and orientation. As journal reviewers and editors, we cannot overemphasize the importance of authors’ using the correct writing style for the journal. For ETR&Dand most educational research journals, the adopted style is “APA,” as described in the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association(5th ed., 2001). APA also has guidelines on their web site (http://www.apa.org/journals/webref.html) for citing electronic documents. It's no secret that considerable subjectivity is involved in judging the quality of a manuscript. And, first impressions are powerful ones. When a submitted manuscript that does not conform to the specified style, the message to the reviewers is that its author is not very experienced at professional writing and/or has not carefully read the instructions for authors. A third message may be that this article was originally prepared for another journal and was rejected.

Using the correct style is critical

Aside from style, you should also check on length, orientation, and finally, writing mechanics. Some journals favor relatively brief reports (“just the facts”), some favor more technical or comprehensive reports, some are more theoretical, and some are more applied. How well the writing orientation matches the “preferred approach” for the journal is a key factor influencing reviewers’ judgments. Finally, authors sometimes do all of the above things, but sacrifice the review decision to poor writing, represented by incorrect grammar, awkward phrasing, and explanations/discussions that are too limited or too verbose. Misspelled words create an immediate and often fatal negative impression. Carefully review and proofread your writing; ask a colleague to provide an additional check before you submit the manuscript.

Proper Etiquette in Submitting The Manuscript

Just as writing style makes an immediate impression, so does the way you submit the manuscript. An editor who has to make additional photocopies because too few were sent by the author will not be pleased. Read the guidelines in a current edition of the journal to determine to how to submit the manuscript, how many copies are needed if paper copies are submitted, whether a disk copy is required, and other procedures. Some journals will further request that information, which could identify the authors (citations of previous work, name of university, etc.) be removed from the cover page and text in a specified number of copies. For example, the editor might ask that you remove any references to your prior work and change to “Author” rather than “Ross & Morrison, 2004.” If the manuscript is accepted, you will need to insert the actual citations in the text and in the reference section.
It is appropriate protocol to enclose a brief cover letter with the manuscript However, please do not follow in the footsteps of an author who recently submitted a manuscript to ETR&D, writing in his cover letter, “Please consider this manuscript for publication in Computers and Human Behavior.”! (Using the wrong journal name is not a great beginning.) The cover letter, a note with an online submission, or email is useful to editors for knowing to whom and where to send correspondence about the manuscript. A letter that is brief and business-like will do the trick, you do not need to provide an abstract of your article in the letter. If you are submitting electronically, make sure you enter your correct email address.

“I Am Pleased To Inform You That...”

Picture the following scene. Several weeks (or months) after submitting the manuscript, you receive an envelope bearing the return address of the journal editor. You remove the cover letter with anticipation, your eyes gradually making out the magic words, “I am pleased to inform you that...”

Congratulations, you’ve made it through the “difficult” part. But there is probably some work remaining–in most situations, the acceptance will be contingent on your making some revisions. The reviewers’ comments will be enclosed. Carefully read them, along with the editor’s recommendations. If you are uncertain about how to make the changes, call or email the editor. Your manuscript is being planned for a particular issue, so be sure to return the revised version on time. A good strategy when you resubmit the manuscript is to summarize the revisions made (and provide a rationale if you chose not to follow a particular recommendation) on a separate sheet. This summary helps the editor to review the changes and creates a favorable impression about your responsiveness.

If your reviewers have recommended significant changes it is sometimes overwhelming to process their comments. We have found it useful to cut-and-paste the comments of the different reviewers so that we can arrange them in a logical order. While reading the individual comments seemed overwhelming, by pasting all their comments related to one topic/issue together; we found the comments were very similar and quite easy to make the changes.

A month or so prior to the actual publication, you may receive page proofsfrom the publisher to proofread. Take this task seriously, since typos or other errors that you miss will forever remain in the published article that bears your name. Pay particular attention to your headings to make sure the proofs reflect your manuscript. Any changes that you make at this time should be limited to spelling. Rewriting your manuscript could result in a sizable bill for the additional typesetting work.

“If The First Time You Don't Succeed...”

Unfortunately, a fact of publishing life is having a manuscript rejected. While it is typical to be disappointed, it is clearly counter-productive to feel angry. Sure, you might have had “bad” reviewers or an unfeeling editor (don’t we all?), but chances are that there are legitimate weaknesses of the paper in its present form. But, remember, the paper does not have to remain in that form, and there are other journals. So, chalk the rejection up to experience and use it constructively for the “free” advice that it provides on how to improve the paper. Carefully read the reviewers’ criticisms (not all are necessarily good ones), decide which changes are appropriate and reasonable, make those changes, and resubmit the manuscript to another journal. There is no guarantee of success, but assuming your research is of “publishable” quality, your diligence in revising and resubmitting the manuscript should pay off with this try or another.
We have identified 12 reasons why manuscripts are rejected. The reasons and examples are in Table 1.

The Structure of a Research Paper

In this section, we will suggest some format guidelines that you can use in writing a research paper for publication. We emphasize the term, guidelines, since we do not want to offer a “formula” method that readers will follow mechanically. Good writers, like good artists, express themselves creatively according to the nature of their message, subject, and personal style. But, with professional journal publications, there are certain style conventions that readers (and reviewers) expect. Thus, use the following outline adaptively, making sure any major style or content changes are appropriate for the journal that you've selected.

Introduction

1. Begin by identifying the general area of the problem. Examples: “Learning mathematics remains one of the difficult challenges...”.
“Although many teachers use cooperative learning methods, few structure them systematically.”
“Many current design practices can result in increased memory load that hampers the development of schema.”

2. Help the reader to understand the nature of the problem or topic and that there is more to learn about it. That is, create a rationale for the need to add to our knowledge about the problem.
Table 1: Twelve Reasons for Rejecting a Manuscript

3. Review literature that is relevant to your independent variables. The reviews should generally be integrative (broad, summarial) rather than detailed examinations of individual studies. Readers are generally more interested in the “forest” than the “trees.”
4. Avoid paragraph after paragraph that start: “Smith (1993) said ...,” “Jones (1989) did ...,” “Raines (1990) found ...,” etc.
In contrast, each section should draw on previous ones, as follows:
“Using an older group of students, Brown (1986) found ...”
“Walton (1982), however, failed to replicate those results with small classes.”
“In summary, the above work shows ...”
“A contrast is represented in Rogers' (1986) study of English students.”
But, remember, compared to dissertations, theses, and technical reports, literature reviews in journal articles should be brief and directed toward the key parts of your study (independent variables, dependent variables, methods).
5. Conclude the introduction with a brief statement of the purposes of your study (in relation to the literature cited), and the hypotheses and/or research questions. Hypotheses and questions should naturally follow from the preceding discussion and not appear “out of the blue.”

• Use hypotheseswhere the literature, logic, or personal theory supports a prediction (e.g., “It is hypothesized that personalized instruction will result in higher achievement....” “It is predicted that personalized instruction will result in higher achievement.”).
• Use research questionswhere there is no clear basis for hypotheses (e.g., “Will the computer graphics be viewed by students as easier to follow than the print versions?”).
• Avoid null hypotheses, unless you are actually predicting no differences (e.g., “There will be no differences between males and females in achievement on the geography lesson”).
• In qualitative studies, use broad research questionsor a “problem statement” that presents the overall intent of the study.

Method

1. Participants. Clearly describe the subjects or participants(how old, what grade, volunteers or paid, minority, gifted, etc.) and how they were selected, assigned to treatments (if done), etc. Typically in school-based research, you will want to describe the characteristics of the student population and school, but not identify the specific school.
Example: The high school is located in an urban area in Memphis, Tennessee. It serves a mixture of lower-class and middle-class students.
2. Design. A description/identification of the research designis usually needed, especially for experimental-type research, to identify the research approach, treatments, and independent and dependent variables. The design can be incorporated with Participants or treated as a separate section. Examples of design statements:
A 3(treatment) by 2(gender) factorial design was employed.
A quasi-experimentaldesign was used in which three classes took tests under different schedules. Dependent variables were student study time, attitudes toward testing, and achievement test scores.
A descriptivedesign was employed, which involved observing and recording different types of student interactions while working on the computer in pairs.

3. Materialsor instrumentation. In instances where materials are unusual, complex, or of central importance to the treatments being examined, it is desirable to describe them in a separate section that precedes Procedures (see below). This section should include descriptions of tests, learning materials, questionnaires, handouts, etc. In the case of instrumentation, it should address how you obtained the instrument, how many items it includes, how it is scored, how it was validated, what the nature of the items are, and how its scores are interpreted (what does a high score mean?). Be sure to note treatment-by-treatment differences, if any, in materials.
4. Procedure. This section provides a reasonably detailed description of the steps employed in carrying out the study (e.g., implementing different treatments, distributing materials, observing behaviors, testing, etc.). A good rule of thumb to keep in mind in writing this section is that, by reading it, another researcher should be able to replicate the study.
5. Analyses. Unless your analyses are fairly simple or obvious, it is usually appropriate to include a brief description of each major statistical analysis. This section may be incorporated in the Design section, appended to the Procedure section, or treated separately. In our manuscripts, we often include a table that lists each hypothesis and research question in the left column and then describes the relevant data source and analysis in the right column.

Results

• Begin the reporting of results with your most important dependent variables (or outcomes).
• For each major set of outcomes (e.g., test scores, time, attitudes), indicate what analyses were done and what each showed. For qualitativestudies, it is particularly important to describe how the data were coded and interpreted, and how the reliability of the analyses was established.
• Do not interpretthe results here; simply report them.
• Use tableswhere they can help the reader follow the description of findings. Tables should not be used for unimportant results or for results that can be easily described in the text (e.g., “The control group averaged 83.2% and the experimental group averaged 93.6%”). Analysis of variance (or comparable) statistical summary tables are generally not included in journal articles.
• Figurestake up space and are time-consuming to construct. Use them judiciously.
• If the Results section is relatively long, use subheadings to organize it by major outcome variables or analyses performed.
• Be sure to consult sample articles and the appropriate style manual for conventions on reporting statistical findings, formatting tables, etc.
• With qualitative studies, be careful to link results to your data collection methods and analyses. For inexperienced qualitative authors, a common error is to write long narratives about “findings” without providing adequate support for the sources or validity of the data.

Discussion

• Discuss and interpret findings in light of hypotheses or research questions, previous studies, and relevant theory and practice.
• You may wish to point out weaknesses in procedures that may have masked a particular result or that suggest the need for caution in making conclusions.
• You may choose to make recommendations for further research that extends or improves your methods.
• Try to end with concrete conclusionson what was found or not found, and why.
• If appropriate, try to draw implications for instruction or practice in the area researched.
• The primary purpose of your discussion section is to explain your results. A good study may not produce any significant differences, yet the discussion and interpretation may present a meaningful case of why the “absence” of findings is important.
• You might also describe the implications of your research for both researchers and practitioners in the field.

Final Notes

• Remember, each researcher's needs for report formats will differ depending on the type of study conducted and the journal selected. The above outline, therefore, provides guidelines to be adapted to your needs, not necessarily followed in their exact form.
• A common mistake for novice authors is to devote too much space to reviewing literature and too little to explaining methods and materials.
• Not counting references and tables, typical manuscripts run between 10 and 25 double-spaced pages in length. Reviewers especially resent reading overly long manuscripts. Make the writing tight and concise, while being sure to adequately cover the essential information.

Parting Words

We hope that the above perspectives and advice will both encourage and help you to write articles for publication. Publications are personally rewarding by providing recognition of your research. An additional reward is hearing from readers in the form of questions, requests for further information, or comments. In this vein, we invite you to let us know if you found this monograph helpful.

Remember, the key elements of writing for publication are using the right presentation and writing styles, carefully proofing the manuscript, using feedback from reviews constructively, and persisting when a manuscript is not accepted the first or second time. Good luck with your writing, and we hope to “see you” in the journals!