thesis vs published article

Proceedings Proposal
Abstract Book Proposal
Conference Issue Proposal
Publication Newsletters & Alerts

Thesis vs Journal Article: A Comprehensive Comparison

In the world of academia, two prominent forms of scholarly writing are the Thesis and the Journal Article . While both contribute to the advancement of knowledge and showcase research skills, they have distinct characteristics and serve different purposes. Understanding the differences between a thesis and a journal article is crucial for researchers, scholars, and students. In this article, we will provide a detailed and insightful comparison of these two forms of academic writing, examining their purpose, structure, audience, and publication process.

A thesis serves as a comprehensive demonstration of a student’s ability to conduct independent research, analyze data, and contribute original insights to their field of study. Its primary purpose is to fulfill the requirements for the completion of a degree, whether it be a master’s or a doctoral program. A thesis delves deep into a specific research problem, addressing gaps in existing knowledge and making a unique contribution to the field.

On the other hand, a journal article focuses on the dissemination of research findings to the wider academic community. Its purpose is to contribute to the existing body of knowledge, engage in scholarly discourse, and facilitate further research. Journal articles are typically more specific in scope, targeting a particular research question or hypothesis, and highlighting the significance of the findings within the context of the field.

Thesis and journal articles follow different structures to fulfill their respective purposes.

A thesis typically consists of several chapters, including an introduction, literature review, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion. These chapters are interconnected, forming a cohesive narrative that showcases the student’s research journey. Additionally, a thesis may include supplementary sections such as an abstract, acknowledgments, and appendices. The structure of a thesis allows for an extensive exploration of the research problem, thorough analysis of the findings, and comprehensive discussion of their implications.

In contrast, a journal article adheres to a more concise and standardized structure. It typically includes an abstract, introduction, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion. Journal articles are focused and aim to present the research in a clear and concise manner within the limited word count set by the target journal. The structure of a journal article emphasizes brevity, with a specific focus on the key findings and their implications.

Audience and Publication

Theses and journal articles differ in their target audience and publication process.

Theses are primarily intended for academic evaluation and examination. They are typically assessed by a committee of professors or experts in the field. Theses contribute to the existing body of knowledge within a specific discipline, but they are not usually published in academic journals. While some theses may be made available through institutional repositories, their primary audience is the academic community within the student’s institution.

Journal articles, on the other hand, target a broader audience of researchers, scholars, and practitioners in the field. They undergo a rigorous peer-review process, where experts in the field assess the quality, validity, and contribution of the research. Successful publication in a reputable journal allows researchers to share their findings with the wider academic community, receive feedback, and contribute to ongoing scholarly discussions.

Length and Depth

Another significant difference between theses and journal articles lies in their length and depth.

Theses are typically longer and more extensive in terms of content. They require students to conduct comprehensive research, provide detailed literature reviews, and present thorough analyses. The length of a thesis can vary depending on the field and degree level, ranging from tens to hundreds of pages. This length allows for an in-depth exploration of the research problem and the incorporation of relevant theoretical frameworks and methodologies.

Journal articles, on the other hand, are generally shorter and more concise. They aim to present the research findings within the constraints of the target journal’s word count limitations. Journal articles can range from a few thousand words to around 8,000 words, depending on the journal’s requirements. The brevity of journal articles necessitates clear and focused writing, emphasizing the key findings, their interpretation, and their implications for the field. While the depth of analysis may be more limited compared to a thesis, journal articles are expected to provide sufficient information for other researchers to understand and build upon the presented research.

Citation and Referencing

Both theses and journal articles require accurate and comprehensive referencing to acknowledge the contributions of other researchers and provide credibility to the work.

In the case of theses, referencing is typically more extensive, as they involve comprehensive literature reviews and incorporate a broader range of sources. Theses follow specific citation styles, such as APA, MLA, or Chicago, as per the guidelines provided by the institution or department.

Journal articles also adhere to specific citation styles determined by the target journal. However, the referencing in journal articles tends to be more focused on the specific literature and studies directly relevant to the research question at hand. The emphasis is on providing adequate support for the key arguments and findings presented in the article.

The thesis and the journal article are distinct forms of academic writing, each with its own purpose, structure, audience, and publication process.

Theses demonstrate a student’s research capabilities and contribute original insights to their field of study. They are comprehensive in scope, consisting of several chapters that explore the research problem in depth. Theses are primarily evaluated by academic committees and are not typically published in academic journals.

Journal articles, on the other hand, aim to disseminate research findings to the wider academic community. They focus on specific research questions and contribute to existing knowledge. Journal articles follow a concise and standardized structure, adhering to the guidelines of the target journal. They undergo rigorous peer review and are published in reputable journals to reach a broader audience.

Understanding the distinctions between theses and journal articles enables researchers, scholars, and students to approach each form of writing with the appropriate structure, depth, and style required for their intended purpose and audience. Both theses and journal articles play vital roles in advancing knowledge and fostering academic discourse within their respective fields.

Call for Book Chapter on Breast Cancer

Publish Proceedings

In-text Citation: Referencing Guide

APA Referencing Style: A Quick Guide

IEEE Referencing Style: A Quick Guide

Publish with AIJR
Journal Word Template
Paper Publishing Process
Editorial Screening Process
Ethics for Authors
Guest Posting Blog
Submit Proceedings Proposal
Submit Abstract Book Proposal
Submit Conference Issue Proposal
Proceedings vs Book of Abstracts
Proceedings vs Special Issue

Privacy Overview

Interesting
Scholarships
UGC-CARE Journals

11 Differences Between a Thesis and an Article

Journal article and thesis are two important formats of reports in academia. There are certain differences between the thesis and article. The aim of the thesis is totally different from a journal article. Being a researcher , understanding the differences between both kind of academic writing is very essential.

Differences Between a Thesis and an Article

Courtesy: Elsevier.com

Hope, this article helps you to distinguish the difference between a thesis and an article.

What is the Difference Between Thesis and Dissertation?

What is the difference between sci, scie and esci journals, how to become an academic journal reviewer|step by step guide.

Difference between
Peer Reviewed Journals

PhD in India 2024 – Cost, Duration, and Eligibility for Admission

100 connective words for research paper writing, phd supervisors – unsung heroes of doctoral students.

Really it is very very important for a Researcher. Without knowledge of writing an article and thesis research is a dilemma .It is fruitless. Many Many Thanks for your Support in this regard.

[…] 11 Differences Between a Thesis and an Article […]

[…] Also Read: 11 Differences Between a Thesis and an Article | iLovePhD […]

Google News

Artificial intelligence

Publication Process

How to Write a Journal Article from a Thesis

3 minute read
210.7K views

Table of Contents

You are almost done with your PhD thesis and want to convert it into a journal article. Or, you’re initiating a career as a journal writer and intend to use your thesis as a starting point for an article. Whatever your situation, turning a thesis into a journal article is a logical step and a process that eventually every researcher completes. But…how to start?

The first thing to know about converting a thesis into a journal article is how different they are:

Thesis Characteristics:

Meets academic requirements
Reviewed by select committee members
Contains chapters
Lengthy, no word limits
Table of contents
Lengthy research of literature
IRB approval described in detail
Description and copies of tools used
All findings presented
Verb tenses may vary

Journal Article Characteristics:

Meets journalistic standards
Reviewed by a panel of “blind” reviewers
Word limits
Manuscript format
Succinct research of literature
IRB described in 1 to 3 sentences
Essential and succinct tool information
Selected findings presented
Verb tenses are fairly consistent

Converting your thesis to a journal article may be complex, but it’s not impossible.

A thesis is a document of academic nature, so it’s more detailed in content. A journal article, however, is shorter, highlighting key points in a more succinct format. Adapting a thesis for conversion into a journal article is a time-consuming and intricate process that can take you away from other important work. In that case, Elsevier’s Language Editing services may help you focus on important matters and provide a high-quality text for submission in no time at all.

If you are going to convert a thesis into a journal article, with or without professional help, here is a list of some of the steps you will likely have to go through:

1. Identify the best journal for your work

Ensure that your article is within the journal’s aim and scope. How to find the right journal? Find out more .
Check the journal’s recommended structure and reference style

2. Shorten the length of your thesis

Treat your thesis as a separate work
Paraphrase but do not distort meaning
Select and repurpose parts of your thesis

3. Reformat the introduction as an abstract

Shorten the introduction to 100-150 words, but maintain key topics to hold the reader’s attention.
Use the introduction and discussion as basis for the abstract

4. Modify the introduction

If your thesis has more than one research question or hypothesis, which are not all relevant for your paper, consider combining your research questions or focusing on just one for the article
Use previously published papers (at least three) from the target journal as examples

5. Tighten the methods section

Keep the discussion about your research approach short

6. Report main findings in the results

Expose your main findings in the results section in concise statements

7. Discussion must be clear and concise

Begin by providing an interpretation of your results: “What is it that we have learned from your research?”
Situate the findings to the literature
Discuss how your findings expand known or previous perspectives
Briefly present ways in which future studies can build upon your work and address limitations in your study

8. Limit the number of references

To choose the most relevant and recent
To format them correctly
Consider using a reference manager system (e.g. Mendeley ) to make your life easier

If you are not a proficient English speaker, the task of converting a thesis into a journal article might make it even more difficult. At Elsevier’s Language Editing services we ensure that your manuscript is written in correct scientific English before submission. Our professional proofers and editors check your manuscript in detail, taking your text as our own and with the guarantee of maximum text quality.

Language editing services by Elsevier Author Services:

Research Process

How to Choose a Journal to Submit an Article

Publication Recognition

How to Submit a Paper for Publication in a Journal

Publishing Biomedical Research: What Rules Should You Follow?

Writing an Effective Cover Letter for Manuscript Resubmission

Journal Acceptance Rates: Everything You Need to Know

Research Data Storage and Retention

How to Find and Select Reviewers for Journal Articles

How to Request the Addition of an Extra Author Before Publication

Paper Rejection: Common Reasons

Input your search keywords and press Enter.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Publishing a Master’s Thesis: A Guide for Novice Authors

Robert g. resta.

1 Swedish Cancer Institute, Swedish Medical Center, Seattle, WA USA

Patricia McCarthy Veach

2 Department of Educational Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN USA

Sarah Charles

3 Jefferson Kimmel Cancer Center, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA USA

Kristen Vogel

4 Center for Medical Genetics, NorthShore University HealthSystem, Evanston, IL USA

Terri Blase

5 Department of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Advocate Christ Medical Center, Oak Lawn, IL USA

Christina G. S. Palmer

6 Department of Psychiatry & Biobehavioral Sciences, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA USA

7 Department of Human Genetics, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA USA

8 UCLA Semel Institute, 760 Westwood Plaza, Room 47-422, Los Angeles, CA 90095 USA

Publication of original research, clinical experiences, and critical reviews of literature are vital to the growth of the genetic counseling field, delivery of genetic counseling services, and professional development of genetic counselors. Busy clinical schedules, lack of time and funding, and training that emphasizes clinical skills over research skills may make it difficult for new genetic counselors to turn their thesis projects into publications. This paper summarizes and elaborates upon a presentation aimed at de-mystifying the publishing process given at the 2008 National Society of Genetic Counselors Annual Education Conference. Specific topics include familiarizing prospective authors, particularly genetic counseling students, with the basics of the publication process and related ethical considerations. Former students’ experiences with publishing master’s theses also are described in hopes of encouraging new genetic counselors to submit for publication papers based on their thesis projects.

Introduction

Scholarship is important for growth of a profession and for clinical care. For these reasons, the American Board of Genetic Counseling (ABGC) endorses scholarly activities through Practice Based Competency IV.5 (American Board of Genetic Counseling 2009 ). Boyer ( 1990 ) describes four types of scholarship (Scholarship of Discovery, Scholarship of Integration, Scholarship of Application, and Scholarship of Teaching), all of which are endorsed by ABGC and required of accredited genetic counseling training programs. The first three types of scholarship, which involve generating new knowledge or applying existing knowledge to an important problem, are the basis of the ABGC’s requirement that students in accredited programs engage in scholarship and complete a scholarly product. The ABGC defines a scholarly product to include: a master’s thesis, an independent research project, a literature review/case report, a formal needs assessment, design and implementation of an innovative patient, professional, or community educational program, and/or preparation of a grant proposal.

The purpose of this article is to encourage students to disseminate their scholarly work (except grant proposals) through a journal publication. This article was developed from an Educational Breakout Session (EBS) at the 2008 National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) Annual Education Conference and draws upon the experiences of a past editor and current assistant editor of the Journal of Genetic Counseling ( JOGC ), a student mentor, and recent genetic counseling graduates who successfully turned their student thesis projects into peer-reviewed publications.

Engaging in scholarship is important for increasing genetic counselors’ self-knowledge, but dissemination of scholarship is essential for the growth of the genetic counseling field. McGaghie and Webster ( 2009 ) identify a wide range of types of scholarly products that promote broad dissemination of information, including peer-reviewed journal articles (e.g., original research, case reports, review articles), book chapters, books or monographs, edited books, essays, editorials, book reviews, letters, conference reports, educational materials, reports of teaching practices, curriculum description, videos, simulations, simulators, and web-based tutorials. As evidence of the importance of disseminating scholarship to the field of genetic counseling, dissemination of scholarly products is actively promoted by the NSGC, the major professional organization for the genetic counseling profession. A prominent example of NSGC’s commitment to dissemination is the JOGC , a professional journal devoted to disseminating peer-reviewed information relevant to the practice of genetic counseling. The success of this journal over nearly two decades is a strong indicator of the value genetic counselors place on publishing journal articles as an essential product of scholarship.

Individuals who have completed a master’s thesis or equivalent should consider publication. This “call to publish” student work is based on evidence that a large proportion of students engage in a scholarly activity with publication potential. A recent survey of 531 genetic counselors suggests that 75% of respondents fulfilled their scholarly activity requirement via a master’s thesis (Clark et al. 2006 ). Among this group, 21% classified their thesis as “hypothesis driven” and 20% classified it as a “descriptive study.” Although the research may be relatively small scale given the time and resource constraints of short training programs (≤2 years), it nonetheless offers a rich and varied source of information about the practice of genetic counseling that could be shared with the broader community through publication. Yet Clark et al. ( 2006 ) found that only 21.6% of respondents who completed a master’s thesis had submitted a manuscript for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. It appears that many students do not submit their research for professional publication, perhaps due to a combination of time constraints, lack of mentoring and support, unfamiliarity with the publication process, lack of professional confidence, and fear of rejection (Clark et al. 2006 ; Cohen et al. 2008 ; Driscoll and Driscoll 2002 ; Keen 2006 ). Because this is one aspect of scholarship that has received limited attention, guidance regarding the details and vicissitudes of the publication process, and acknowledgement that master’s theses can be successfully published, are needed.

Of course, one might question why students should or would publish the results of their graduate work. The answer is complex, without a “one size fits all,” because scholarship can be intrinsically and/or extrinsically motivated. McGaghie and Webster ( 2009 ) describe intrinsic motives as including sharing knowledge, career advancement, status improvement, collegial approval, personal pleasure, and response to challenge; extrinsic motives include academic pressure, commitment to patient care, practice improvement, and promoting the use of new technologies. Although the reasons genetic counselors publish articles have not been empirically evaluated, Clark et al. ( 2006 ) (i) concluded that a substantial number of genetic counselors consider active involvement in research (a form of scholarship and precursor to publication) to be a core role, and (ii) found that respondents endorsed a range of intrinsic and extrinsic motives for their involvement in research. These reasons included interest in the subject, contributing to the field, personal development/satisfaction, diversifying job responsibilities, job requirements, lack of existing research on a particular topic, and career advancement. It is reasonable to infer that these reasons would extend to publication as well.

The work that culminates in a master’s thesis provides the basis for a professional journal article. However, writing a professional journal article differs from writing a master’s thesis. This article, therefore, provides practical ideas and considerations about the process for developing a master’s thesis into a peer-reviewed journal article and describes successful case examples. Research and publication occur in stages and include many important topics. Previous genetic counseling professional development articles have partially or comprehensively addressed the topics of developing and conducting a research project (Beeson 1997 ), writing a manuscript (Bowen 2003 ), and the peer-review process (Weil 2004 ). This paper expands on previous articles by describing the publication process and discussing publication ethics, with emphasis on aspects pertinent to publishing a master’s thesis. It is hoped that this article will encourage genetic counselors to publish their research.

The primary audience for this article is genetic counselors who are conducting a master’s thesis or equivalent or who completed a thesis in the last few years which remains unpublished. The secondary audience is other novice authors and affiliated faculty of genetic counseling training programs. Although the focus of this paper is on journal publications which are subject to a peer-review process (e.g., original research, clinical reports, and reviews), some of the basic information applies to a variety of publishing forms.

The Publication Process

Publish before it perishes.

Like produce and dairy products, data have a limited shelf life. Research results may be rendered marginal by new research, social changes, and shifts in research trends. For example, a study of patient reluctance to undergo genetic testing due to concerns about health insurance discrimination conducted in December 2007 would have been obsolete when the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (Pub.L. 110–233, 122 Stat. 881, enacted May 21, 2008) was enacted 5 months later. Or studies of whether patients think they might undergo testing if a gene for a particular condition were identified become less relevant once the gene is actually mapped and sequenced.

The hardest part about writing is actually writing. Making the time to sit down and compose a report of research findings is a very difficult first step. As noted in the three case examples, this is particularly true for a recent graduate whose time is occupied with searching for a new job, moving to a new city, and learning the details of a new job. However, the longer you wait, the more difficult it becomes, and the greater the risk that your data will grow stale. If you do not write it, the paper will likely not get written. The three case examples identify strong mentorship, ongoing communication with co-authors, constructive criticism, and commitment to publication by every author as key elements for successfully preparing a manuscript. The following sections describe basic processes for preparing a paper. See also Table 1 for helpful references about technical aspects of manuscript preparation.

Table 1

Selected Resources For Manuscript Preparation

Choosing a Journal

Research delivered to an inappropriate audience is ignored. Many journals publish genetic counseling research—as demonstrated by the three case examples—and therefore, choosing the right journal is critical (Thompson 2007 ). The first step is to decide who the audience should be. Is it important to reach genetic counselors? Medical geneticists? Or is the audience outside of the genetic counseling community? Some genetic counseling research is of interest to researchers in patient education, decision-making, or the social sciences. Clinicians such as surgeons, radiology technicians, psychologists, and family practice physicians might benefit from a greater understanding of genetic counseling and how it interfaces with their specialties.

The next step is to decide whether the journal is interested in the type of research conducted. For example, does the journal publish articles mostly on medical and clinical issues? Does it publish qualitative research? A description of the scope, aims, and types of research that are published is located in the “Instructions to Contributors” section on the web page of most journals. A look at the journal’s editorial board might also provide a good idea of a journal’s theoretical approaches, philosophical orientation, and research interests. Another strategy is to contact the journal’s editor or a member of the editorial board prior to submitting a manuscript to discuss the appropriateness of the manuscript for the journal. Many editors welcome such pre-submission contact since it reduces their workload of reading inappropriate manuscripts.

A journal’s “impact factor” may be important to some authors when considering where to publish a manuscript. The impact factor is a—perhaps imperfect—statistical measure of a journal’s importance. The impact factor was developed in the early 1960s by Eugene Garfield and Irving Sher and is technically defined as A/B, where A = the number of times articles published in that journal were cited and B = the number of citable articles published by the journal (letters and editorials are not usually citable articles) (Garfield 1994 ). An impact factor of one indicates that on average, articles published in the journal were cited once by other authors.

A journal’s impact factor can vary greatly from year to year, and its practical utility is widely debated (Andersen et al. 2006 ; Chew et al. 2006 ; Greenwood 2007 ; Ha et al. 2006 ; The PLoS Medicine Editors 2006 ). Genetic counselors often publish small studies and case reports. The journals that might publish such papers usually have impact factors of ten or less. Thus the impact factor may be a less important consideration for many genetic counselors when deciding where to publish.

A publisher’s copyright policy may also influence the choice of where to publish. The majority of publishers own the copyright (United States Copyright Office 2008 ) and authors do not have the right to copy, re-use, or distribute their own publications without buying reprints, which can be a significant source of income for publishers. Some journals, like the Public Library of Science (PLoS), are completely Open Access and make all articles fully available online. Other journals have Delayed Open Access, which makes articles publicly available after a specified period of time, often a year or two. Many journals, such as the JOGC , promote Hybrid Open Access in which authors, for a fee, can make their articles publicly available. Some journals will make select articles publicly available, usually those that attract media attention. For grant-funded research, consider the requirements of the funding source; some granting agencies require that the research results be made publicly available at some point.

Peer Review

Peer review is the process in which two or three experts evaluate a manuscript to determine whether it is worthy of publication. Peer review is the backbone of scholarly publishing; no research manuscript gets published until a team of reviewers and journal editors vets it. Ideally, reviewers are objective, constructively critical, open-minded, fair, and insightful. Some journals blind the reviewer to the author’s identity, in hopes that the authors’ reputations or professional relationships will not influence the review. Some journals will let authors suggest reviewers or request that certain people not review a manuscript. A journal’s peer review policies may be another important consideration in choosing where to submit a manuscript.

In practice, peer review is not always ideal (Benose et al. 2007 ; Curfman et al. 2008 ; Hames 2007 ; Wager et al. 2006 ). Nonetheless, no better or viable alternative has been proposed. Reviews may sometimes appear to be arbitrary, unfair, and poorly performed. Reading such reviews can be very difficult and frustrating, even for experienced authors. However, it is a reviewer’s job to be critical, and there may be elements of truth in even the most negative reviews. Some editors may be willing to send a manuscript to another reviewer if an original reviewer produces a harshly critical or poorly thought out critique. Some journals have a formal appeals process if a manuscript is rejected or an author feels a review is inaccurate, inappropriate, or biased. However, sometimes it is simply easier to submit the manuscript to a different journal. Case # 2 describes a successful example where submitting a manuscript to a different journal led to publication.

The manuscript rejection rate varies widely across journals, but about half of all manuscripts are rejected or require significant revisions (Armstrong et al. 2008 ; Hall and Wilcox 2007 ; Liesegang et al. 2007 ). About half of rejected manuscripts are published in other journals (Armstrong et al. 2008 ; Hall and Wilcox 2007 ; Liesegang et al. 2007 ). Even among articles that are accepted for publication, the vast majority will require significant revisions. All three case examples describe manuscripts that underwent significant revision. Thus, prospective authors should not be disheartened if a manuscript is rejected or needs extensive re-writing; this is the rule rather than the exception . Many editors are willing to work with authors who have questions about specific comments or how best to incorporate the reviewers’ suggestions. Busy journal editors would rather answer questions up front than have to laboriously edit a revised manuscript and send it back for further revisions.

Peer review, and the subsequent manuscript revisions, along with the number of manuscripts submitted to the journal, are probably the most critical bottlenecks in determining how long it takes before a manuscript appears in print. Typically, a year or more may pass from the time of submission to the publication date. The three case examples include their timeframes to highlight the need for perseverance and patience with the publication process.

The clearest way for authors to respond to editors’ and reviewers’ comments is to prepare a table that lists each comment and how the authors addressed them, item by item. Some reviewers’ comments may be inaccurate or simply unrealistic (e.g. “The authors should re-do the entire research study...”); these can be discussed in the table or in the cover letter that accompanies the table. Additional information about the peer-review process can be found in Weil ( 2004 ).

Acceptance!

Once a manuscript is accepted for publication, the publisher or the journal editor will send a copyright transfer statement that spells out ownership of the article. This statement must be signed and returned in short order before the manuscript will be published. The corresponding author will receive page proofs, usually electronically, which must be read by the author for accuracy and returned fairly quickly (usually 2–3 days). Many publishers are reluctant to make significant changes in the page proofs, and they may charge for substantial revisions. Thus, the version of the manuscript that is submitted to the journal before the page proofs are generated should be very close to what the author wishes to see in print. Usually at this time publishers will offer the author the option to purchase reprints to allow the author to share the publication with other researchers, co-authors, and colleagues. Some journals will provide a limited number of free reprints or a complimentary copy of the issue of the journal in which the paper appears. The steps in the publication process are summarized in Table 2 .

Table 2

Steps in the Publication Process

a ∼50% of manuscripts are rejected or require significant revision before being accepted for publication

Ethics of Publishing

“Scholarship (like life) is not always fair or precise.” (Thompson 1994 )

Manuscript preparation and submission for publication can be complicated by ethical issues. Many authors may not be aware of these ethical conundrums, let alone have a plan for addressing them. Ethics is not a stagnant concept. As research methodologies and research questions evolve, new ethical issues in publishing arise. This section contains a description of several issues broadly relevant to the publishing practice of genetic counselors, particularly as students or recent graduates. However, it is important for genetic counselors-as-authors to keep abreast of ethical issues relevant to their own work.

“Ethics” are principles that govern the behavior of individuals or groups (Merriam-Webster 1974 ). Ethical codes of conduct exist in order to preserve the integrity of a profession, ensure the public’s welfare, and protect scholars. Ethical issues particularly relevant to writing for publication, include: (1) authorship determination, (2) disclosure and conflicts of interest, (3) plagiarism, (4) subject confidentiality, (5) accuracy of information, and (6) publishing in multiple sources.

Authorship Determination

Consider the following situation: A student conducted an excellent study for her master’s thesis project. At the beginning of the project, her supervisor promised her that she would have first authorship on any manuscripts based on the project. However, when the time came to write the paper, the student procrastinated. Finally, after the supervisor repeatedly “nagged” her, she submitted a draft to her, but it was very poorly written. The supervisor decided the only way to salvage the paper was to totally rewrite it herself. Now the supervisor thinks that she deserves to be the first author. Is this ethical? Does it matter if the project was the student’s master’s thesis rather than a project in which she was voluntarily involved? Are there guidelines that might be implemented in advance to handle this kind of situation?

This complex situation may be all too familiar for many supervisors and students. It raises issues about valuing contributions to the publication process, the power differential between supervisors and students, determining when renegotiation of authorship is warranted, and setting expectations and priorities up front. Whenever manuscripts are authored by more than one individual, order of authorship should be negotiated as early in the process as possible. Only individuals who have actually contributed to the work should be listed as authors. Their order should indicate “...the relative scientific or professional contributions of the individuals involved, regardless of their status” (Shadish 1994 ) (p. 1096). In the sciences, the first and last authors typically are the individuals that made the greatest contributions to the project (Laflin et al. 2005 ). Many journals require a listing of each author’s contribution to the manuscript in order to make sure each person meets the journal’s requirements to be listed as an author.

Student authors pose a special situation. Doctoral students usually are the first authors of papers based on their dissertation research (Nguyen and Nguyen 2006 ). Authorship order is less clear for masters’ projects because masters’ students may lack sufficient knowledge and skills to conduct a project and prepare a manuscript of publishable quality without considerable input from their supervisor (Shadish 1994 ). Thompson ( 1994 ) recommends that when there is any question as to who made the primary contribution, the student should receive higher authorship. His recommendation helps to protect the person who has less power in the situation. Often students are involved in studies that are not based on their own master’s or doctoral research, but rather are connected to an existing research program, such as case examples 1 and 2. In those situations, some authors contend that their involvement should be creative and intellectual in order to warrant authorship; otherwise, student input can be credited in an acknowledgement section (Fine and Kurdek 1993 ; Holaday and Yost 1995 ; Thompson 1994 ).

Negotiating authorship is an important step that should begin in the initial stages of a project. This step usually involves assessing and agreeing upon each person’s tasks, contributions, and efforts. The amount of supervision required for an individual’s contributions is usually considered as well (Fine and Kurdek 1993 ). Sometimes renegotiation of authorship order is necessary due to unexpected changes and/or substantial revision of the manuscript. The key is to remember that authorship is negotiated. Questions to consider throughout this negotiation process include: Who had the original idea for the basis of the publication? Who designed and conducted the study that generated the data? Who will write most of the first draft of the paper? Is the study part of someone’s research lab? Students should maintain early and on-going communication with their co-authors about their investment of time and efforts and the outcomes of those efforts (Sandler and Russell 2005 ). However, scholarly contribution is more important than actual time and effort expended when determining authorship. For more information regarding authorship determination, it may be useful to review guidelines for discussing and clarifying authorship order (Gibelman and Gelman 1999 ) or developing individualized contracts for research collaboration (Stith et al. 1992 ). These guidelines also may be useful for initiating discussion of authorship as part of the curriculum in genetic counseling training programs.

Take another look at the authorship scenario. At the time of the original negotiation of authorship, it is likely that the supervisor (and other parties) believed the student warranted first authorship due to her creative contributions and time allotted to the study. In most authors’ minds, first authorship is equated with substantial contribution to writing the manuscript, usually the first draft, so it is important the student understand this is part of the responsibilities of being first author. Typically students have no experience writing a journal article, and so some procrastination is likely. In this scenario, the authorship dilemma may have been averted by having in place a plan to mentor the student, providing support, and delineating a specific process for writing the first draft of the manuscript.

Manuscripts invariably undergo substantial revision as co-authors and reviewers weigh in, so it is not unusual that the supervisor would revise the student’s first draft. This activity does not prima facie warrant a change in authorship order. However, by developing a specific plan to support the student’s writing, it may minimize the extent of the supervisor’s revisions. It is possible, though, that the student’s procrastination and poor writing should initiate a renegotiation of authorship order because the level and nature of her contributions to the work may be changing. The supervisor and student should discuss the reasons for changing authorship order; the supervisor should not unilaterally make this change without discussion. Keep in mind that the bar for changing authorship should be much higher if the paper is based on the student’s master’s thesis than if it is based on a project in which she was voluntarily involved. It is also important to inform students early in the process that most research is a collaborative effort, requiring time, energy, and sometimes funding, and therefore their collaborators have expectations that their contributions will be rewarded through publication. Developing an a priori policy for renegotiation may often reduce misunderstandings and minimize conflict.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

Consider the following situation: A student conducted a study to evaluate a new program that her clinic is offering to its patients. She interviewed ten patients who participated in the program about their experience. Nine of these patients were in general agreement about the value of the program, while the 10th patient was quite negative about her experience. The student’s impression of this patient is that she is a generally negative person. The student believes that the patient came into the program expecting not to like it. Furthermore, the student is concerned her clinic will lose funding for this program if she reports this patient’s responses. The student decides to exclude her data from the paper. Is this decision ethical? Why or why not?

One ethical issue raised in this scenario involves determining when it is appropriate to exclude data points. Data collected from research can be messy, and it is not unusual for some data points to be excluded from analyses. However, there must be an explicit methodology for excluding data points or subjects, and this information usually is reported in the manuscript. Examples for exclusions include: missing data (e.g., a participant did not complete a majority of the items on a questionnaire); measurement error (e.g., the recorded measurement of a biological process or part of the anatomy is simply impossible); small sample sizes (e.g., an insufficient number of individuals from a minority group participated in the research resulting in numbers too small for meaningful analysis). In the scenario described above, the rationale provided for excluding the 10th patient’s experience is not sufficient to warrant exclusion. Instead, it appears that exclusion of this individual is based on a desire to promote the new program in the student’s clinic. In order to eliminate this form of conflict of interest, one could consider involving a clinic outsider in the analysis and interpretation of the data. By including a clinic outsider in the project, editor and reviewer concerns about the integrity of the data, analyses, and conclusions will be allayed.

Most journals provide another “safeguard,” by requiring a statement about possible conflicts of interest. A conflict of interest statement requires the author to acknowledge in writing the nature of any circumstances that might bias the process and/or outcome of their work. For example, any project and published report that might result in direct financial gains for an author(s) should be disclosed to a journal’s editor and to the readership. Examples of possible conflicts of interest include conducting a study of the effectiveness of a genetic test funded by the company that developed and is marketing the test, or a program evaluation study whose outcome would determine the continuation of the investigators/authors’ jobs.

Plagiarism is a familiar concept to most people. Everyone generally understands the importance of “giving credit where credit is due.” Yet, the National Science Foundation estimates that the prevalence of plagiarism may be as high as 50% (Roig 2001 ). Probably many of these incidents are unintentional and/or occur because the authors were unaware of some of the nuances regarding plagiarism. Although there is some variability within and across disciplines about the specific behaviors that constitute plagiarism, there is general agreement about two broad types (Roig 2001 ): cryptamnesia -an individual thinks their idea is original when it actually was presented by someone else previously; and inappropriate paraphrasing —an individual uses another person’s published text without properly citing that use, and/or using their statements with little or no modification. Specific examples of inappropriate paraphrasing include: (1) publishing another person’s work as one’s own; (2) copying part of another author’s paper and claiming it as one’s own; (3) copying text from another source without using quotations marks and without citing that source in the text; (4) paraphrasing text from another source without providing an in-text citation; (5) summarizing material from another source without clearly connecting the summary to that source; and (6) using copyrighted materials without author/publisher permission (East 2006 ; Lester and Lester Jr. 1992 ).

Additional types of plagiarism include ambiguous use of citations. For instance, an individual includes a citation in a paragraph but does not clearly indicate which content in the paragraph is from the cited work. Another type of plagiarism is self-plagiarism . Self-plagiarism occurs when an individual includes published work of their own for which they do not own the copyright (e.g., reprinting a table from one of their previously published papers); repeating verbatim text from a previously published article. Permission to reprint material from the publisher must be obtained.

Plagiarism is a serious ethical breach which can result in a legal penalty. Strategies for avoiding plagiarism include limiting the use of direct quotes; avoiding the use of secondary sources—it is always better to read and cite an original source when available; and restating ideas in one’s own words while providing in-text citation of the work that contains the original ideas (East 2006 ; Lambie et al. 2008 ; Lester and Lester Jr. 1992 ). When in doubt regarding the originality of one’s words, it is best to cite the source(s) on which they are based. In this regard, it may help to bear in mind that readers will assume all words in the paper are the author’s unless the source(s) are cited.

Subject Confidentiality

Published papers must be written in a way that no subjects can be recognized by others without their written consent (Gavey and Braun 1997 ). Given the unique nature of genetics, family members may also need to provide written consent (McCarthy Veach et al. 2001 ). When possible, identifying information should be removed or disguised (e.g., use of pseudonyms) and data based on multiple subjects should be reported in aggregate (group) form. Institutional review boards (IRBs) play a critical role in assuring protection of subject confidentiality. Many journals require authors to indicate either in the paper or a cover letter that they have obtained institutional review board approval to conduct their animal or human subjects study. In some cases, an ethics board may have been consulted regarding ethical dilemmas reported in a clinical paper and this should be acknowledged in the paper.

Accuracy of Information

Authors are responsible for rigorously checking the accuracy of their facts, data, and conclusions. However, despite one’s best efforts, substantial errors sometimes are not discovered until after a paper is published. In that case, the corresponding author should contact the journal immediately and ask that an erratum be published. On a related note, authors have a professional responsibility to make data sets reported in published papers available to other professionals. This practice allows for verification of the findings and conclusions, and it also makes possible research replications and extensions of the original study. The length of time for retaining research records depends on institutional policy and sponsor policy, so it is important to be aware of how these policies apply to the research generated by a master’s thesis. Often institutional review boards require researchers to state how long they will maintain a data set, and the researchers must adhere to that time frame.

Another accuracy issue concerns modifying and reporting the use of published material (e.g., an interview protocol, psychological instrument, curriculum) without clearly describing the precise nature of the modifications. Interpretation of findings and their comparison to other studies using the “same” instrumentation may be severely compromised when an author fails to report modifications. Further, professional courtesy suggests that permission be sought from the author before changing her or his material. Also, use of published material requires crediting the author(s) of that material by including relevant citations.

Publishing in Multiple Sources

In the sciences, a manuscript should not be under review by more than one journal at a time. It is, however, acceptable to submit material for presentation at a conference prior to its actual publication in a journal, as the authors in case examples 1 and 3 did. Some conferences publish proceedings , and some journals will not publish work that is already published in a Proceedings unless the two papers differ substantially. When in doubt, it is good practice to contact a journal’s editor to determine the journal’s policy. Journals typically only publish original work, but on occasion there may be interest in reprinting an article. Reprinting a previously published paper requires written permission from the owner of the publication copyright. As a matter of courtesy, one should also seek the corresponding author’s permission, even if the author does not own the copyright.

Examples of Success

The benefits of sharing knowledge within the medical community and with the public via publication have been delineated. The publication of original work contributes to the advancement of the genetic counseling field overall, and at the individual level, authorship establishes a level of professional credibility, enhancing opportunities for future employability, funding and job satisfaction. The opportunity to develop a genetic counseling master’s thesis into a manuscript should therefore not be overlooked. Below are the personal accounts of three recent graduates who successfully transformed their individual master’s theses into published manuscripts. These examples were not systematically ascertained, and as such, do not necessarily represent all experiences with trying to publish a master’s thesis. These stories provide “first-hand accounts” of the authors’ experiences and, while acknowledging the challenges, demonstrate commitment to publishing their own projects throughout their careers. Table 3 contains a list of helpful hints gleaned from these cases.

Table 3

Helpful Hints for First Time Authors

Case 1: Consider Writing Your Thesis and Journal Article Concurrently

As a result of personal determination, and above all, strong mentorship, I was able to turn my master’s thesis work into a manuscript published in Patient Education and Counseling , titled “Satisfaction with genetic counseling for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations among African American women” (Charles et al. 2006 ). My work was a small component of an existing research project being conducted within a university academically affiliated with my genetic counseling training program. The project was an evaluation of the overall effects of “Culturally Tailored vs. Standard Genetic Counseling Protocol” among African American women.

I started by reviewing previous publications this group of researchers had produced and using these as a guide for my first draft, followed by multiple revisions. Approximately 17 months elapsed between first submission and publication. We submitted the manuscript in its original form in May 2005. We received the reviewers’ comments later that summer, and submitted revisions five months later. The article was accepted in that same month, published online five months later and in print seven months after the online version appeared. Shortly after graduating from my program I submitted an abstract of the work to NSGC for presentation at the 2005 Annual Education Conference, and subsequently learned that it was selected for the NSGC Beth Fine Student Abstract award.

My experience may be unusual because I worked on the manuscript and thesis project concurrently. Composing separate but related documents while still juggling second year genetic counseling student responsibilities was certainly a challenge. Preparing a comprehensive thesis project is a very different task than manuscript composition, the latter of which is more focused and narrow in scope. Challenges posed by this concurrent approach included ensuring that text requirements and deadlines specific to each document were met, as well as incorporating and addressing the reviews of both the training program and peer-reviewers. The main benefits of this approach were that I was still in school and therefore geographically close to my mentors, which facilitated ongoing communication throughout the process, and that the manuscript was under review by a journal before I started my new job.

Factors contributing to the successful publication of this project include mentorship, accountability, and commitment to publication by every author. Supportive, constructively critical, and well published, my mentors had high standards and knew the process. Frankly, I did not want to disappoint them. I found setting deadlines and meeting them, along with the accountability of in-person meetings (as opposed to email), to be effective approaches. Finally, publishing the project was a stated goal of the authors at the initiation of the project. I will not claim that the process was easy, but the goal is certainly attainable and worthwhile.

Case 2: You Need Not Publish Every Thesis Finding—Pick The Most Interesting and Relevant

As is the case for many graduate students, the first time I attempted to publish was after I completed my thesis. My thesis concerned the development of a minority research recruitment database and was the result of my graduate research on underserved populations.

Following graduation, I started my first job as a genetic counselor in a new city. During the overwhelming process of adjusting to “my new life,” my thesis advisor asked me to submit a manuscript to the American Journal of Public Health in response to a call for abstracts on genetics topics. Unfortunately, the deadline was only one week away. I scrambled to cut down my lengthy thesis to a reasonable length and submitted it, knowing that it was not my best work given the time constraint. Needless to say, it was rejected.

I decided that before resubmitting the manuscript to a different journal, I would need to take a different approach to the paper, more or less starting over. While my research results were interesting, they were limited in their application. I decided to publish instead on the success of our research initiative, as other researchers could learn from our process. Since I was changing the focus of the manuscript, I had to do an additional literature search and produce much of the writing from scratch. Most of this work had to be completed in my free time. While it was difficult to stay motivated, working on my manuscript when first starting a job was manageable as my caseload was lightest in the beginning. After several weeks of hard work, I submitted the manuscript to Health Promotion Practice .

About one month later, the editor contacted me and asked me to resubmit my manuscript with revisions. Three different reviewers provided feedback. Initially, it was overwhelming to read through their comments and frustrating, particularly when the reviewers contradicted each other. Despite my frustration, with my co-authors’ guidance I forged ahead and resubmitted, only to have the editor and reviewers ask for additional revisions. There were comments from the same three reviewers, however, far fewer in number. Still, I was beginning to think they would never accept the manuscript. I once again called upon my co-authors for guidance and was able to address the reviewers’ comments and resubmit the manuscript once again.

This time when I heard from the editor, the manuscript was finally accepted. What started out as a 120 page thesis ended up being published as an eight page paper (Vogel et al. 2007 ). It took approximately 8 months of writing and revising before the manuscript was finally accepted and an additional year before it came out in print. While the entire process was a true test of patience and determination, it was ultimately worth it. The experience gave me the foundation to carry on my research career and continue to publish successfully.

Case 3: Expectations and Mentorship are Crucial

I defended my thesis, received my Master’s degree, and was about to move back to the Midwest to start my new job as a genetic counselor, but my long “To-Do” list had one remaining item: Publish master’s thesis. I started the initial master’s thesis process with the expectation from one of my thesis advisors, and now a co-author, that research is not “put down and set aside” until published. I never questioned the process; if I was going to work with this advisor, I would be publishing. I was excited to undertake this challenge and impressed by my thesis advisor’s dedication, mentorship, and desire to see our hard work recognized. Nearly two years later, I could proudly say that this expectation, held by all of my thesis advisors and me, was accomplished. The manuscript, published in the JOGC , describes qualitative research regarding communication of genetic test results within a family (Blase et al. 2007 ).

In the beginning, I was unfamiliar with the publication process, but because of the support and guidance of my advisors, I began to learn the process, and so the frustrations and uncertainties were minimal. I also had a great working relationship with my co-authors that included communicating regularly and setting and meeting deadlines. After deciding the JOGC was the most appropriate venue for my research, I spent a good deal of time reducing and reformatting the 80 page thesis to a 20–25 page manuscript to meet the journal’s guidelines. Given the page constraints, this process necessitated determining which data to focus on and re-framing some information to appropriately fit the readers of my selected journal. Conversations with my advisors were instrumental in this phase.

There was nothing quick about publishing my master’s thesis. I graduated in June 2005, received an email shortly thereafter from one of my advisors about how to begin constructing a first draft of a manuscript, and began working on the manuscript in July 2005. I submitted the manuscript to JOGC in May 2006 and subsequently was informed by the editor that based on the reviews, revisions were required before the manuscript could be considered for publication. In September 2006, after two rounds of revisions, my manuscript was accepted, and by June 2007 it was published in the journal.

Although ultimately I was successful in publishing my master’s thesis, the process had its moments of frustration. I remember getting my first round of comments from the reviewers; I thought I was never going to get to the point of publication. My co-authors supported and encouraged me by explaining that revisions are truly part of the process. I was overwhelmed by the reviewers’ list of questions and changes after my initial submission, followed by additional reviews and revisions. Not only did I have to figure out how to keep the manuscript a priority in light of my new job, but I had to weed through and address the reviewers’ comments, and the suggestions of each co-author. The guidance of my thesis advisors, now co-authors, helped me navigate this process.

I have gained much through this experience. The process has opened doors for me including opportunities to work with other professionals with impressive publishing experiences, as well as speaking and poster presentation opportunities at national conferences. I also have greater confidence about the publishing process. What seemed like such a daunting and impossible task is now an attainable outcome. Although my master’s thesis was my most recent publication, the thought of taking on the publication process again is not nearly as intimidating as I once thought.

Publication of original research, clinical experience, and literature reviews are vital to the growth of the genetic counseling field and to the delivery of genetic counseling services. Publishing also promotes personal growth by counting toward maintenance of ABGC-certification as well as establishing the author as a credible and respected authority both within and outside the genetic counseling field. This professional recognition in turn can lead to employment opportunities, speaking engagements, research funding, and career advancement.

Submitting a manuscript for publication also can be an intellectually challenging, emotionally trying, and time-consuming task. But similar to life’s other difficult tasks, the rewards and satisfaction are commensurately great—to see your name in print, have your work cited by other authors, and know that you have contributed in a meaningful way to the practice and understanding of genetic counseling. Transforming a master’s thesis into a journal article is an obvious first step in developing and sustaining a commitment to publishing for our genetic counseling profession. Common themes in the three success experiences include the importance of mentorship and clear expectations for publishing, recognition of the length of the process and concomitant need for perseverance in the face of revisions, awareness of personal and professional benefits in terms of presentations at national meetings, awards, and motivation to continue publishing. Hopefully the information provided in this article will help to de-mystify the publishing process, promote consideration of ethical issues in publishing, and stimulate genetic counseling students and new graduates to embrace a “Publish for Success” philosophy.

Acknowledgments

This paper was developed from an Educational Breakout Session (EBS) sponsored by the Jane Engelberg Memorial Fellowship Advisory Group at the 2008 NSGC Annual Education Conference.

Open Access

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

American Board of Genetic Counseling. 2009. Competencies . https://doi.org/www.abgc.net/english/view.asp?x=1529&all=true . Accessed October 26, 2009.
Andersen J, Belmont J, Cho CT. Journal impact factor in the era of expanding literature. Journal of Microbiology, Immunology and Infection. 2006; 39 :436–443. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Armstrong AW, Idriss SZ, Kimball AB, Bernhard JD. Fate of manuscripts declined by the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology . Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. 2008; 58 :632–635. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2007.12.025. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Beeson D. Nuance, complexity, and context: qualitative methods in genetic counseling research. Journal of Genetic Counseling. 1997; 6 :21–43. doi: 10.1023/A:1025659701805. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Benose DJ, Bashari E, Chaves JM, Gaggar A, Kapoor N, LaFrance M, et al. The ups and downs of peer review. Advances in Physiology Education. 2007; 31 :145–152. doi: 10.1152/advan.00104.2006. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Blase T, Martinez A, Grody WW, Schimmenti L, Palmer CGS. Sharing GJB2/GJB6 genetic test information with family members. Journal of Genetic Counseling. 2007; 16 :313–324. doi: 10.1007/s10897-006-9066-z. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bowen NK. How to write a research article for the Journal of Genetic Counseling. Journal of Genetic Counseling. 2003; 12 :5–21. doi: 10.1023/A:1021491016830. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Boyer EL. Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching; 1990. [ Google Scholar ]
Charles S, Kessler L, Stopfer JE, Domchek S, Halbert CH. Satisfaction with genetic counseling for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations among African American women. Patient Education and Counseling. 2006; 63 :196–204. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2005.10.007. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Chew M, Villanueva EV, Van Der Weyden MB. Life and times of the impact factor: retrospective analysis of trends for seven medical journals (1994–2005) and their editors’ views. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. 2006; 100 :142–150. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Clark HM, Gamm J, Huether CA, Buncher CR, Blough Pfau RI, Steinberg Warren N. Genetic counselors and research: current practices and future directions. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part C (Seminars in Medical Genetics) 2006; 142C :276–283. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.c.30106. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Cohen BL, Friedman E, Zier K. Publications by students doing a year of full-time research: what are realistic expectations? The American Journal of Medicine. 2008; 121 :545–548. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2008.03.006. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Curfman GD, Morrissey S, Annas GJ, Drazen JM. Peer review in the balance. New England Journal of Medicine. 2008; 358 :2276–2277. doi: 10.1056/NEJMe0803516. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Driscoll J, Driscoll A. Writing an article for publication: an open invitation. Journal of Orthopaedic Nursing. 2002; 6 :144–152. doi: 10.1016/S1361-3111(02)00053-5. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
East J. The problem of plagiarism in academic culture. International Journal for Educational Integrity. 2006; 2 :16–28. doi: 10.21913/IJEI.v2i2.88. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Fine MA, Kurdek LA. Reflections on determining authorship credit and authorship order on faculty-student collaborations. American Psychologist. 1993; 48 :1141–1147. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.48.11.1141. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Garfield, E. (1994). The Thomson Scientific Impact Factor Thomson Reuters (formerly the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI)) . https://doi.org/www.thomsonreuters.com/business_units/scientific/free/essays/impactfactor/ . Accessed 1/24/2009.
Gavey N, Braun V. Ethics and the publication of clinical case material. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice. 1997; 28 :399–404. doi: 10.1037/0735-7028.28.4.399. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Gibelman M, Gelman SR. Who’s the author? Ethical issues in publishing. Journal of Social Work Education. 1999; 35 :203–213. doi: 10.1080/10437797.1999.10778960. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Greenwood DC. Reliability of journal impact factor rankings. BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2007; 7 :48–53. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-7-48. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Ha TC, Tan SB, Soo KC. The journal impact factor: too much of an impact? Annals of the Academy of Medicine Singapore. 2006; 35 :911–916. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Hall SA, Wilcox AJ. The fate of epidemiologic manuscripts: a study of papers submitted to Epidemiology . Epidemiology. 2007; 18 :262–265. doi: 10.1097/01.ede.0000254668.63378.32. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Hames I. Peer review and manuscript management in scientific journals—Guidelines for good practice. Malden: Blackwell Publishing; 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
Holaday M, Yost TE. Authorship credit and ethical guidelines. Counseling and Values. 1995; 40 :24–31. doi: 10.1002/j.2161-007X.1995.tb00384.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Keen A. Writing for publication: pressures, barriers, and support strategies. Nurse Education Today. 2006; 27 :382–388. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2006.05.019. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Laflin MT, Glover ED, McDermott RJ. Publication ethics: an examination of authorship practices. American Journal of Health Behavior. 2005; 29 :579–587. doi: 10.5993/AJHB.29.6.12. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Lambie GW, Sias SM, Davis KM, Lawson G, Akos P. A scholarly writing resource for counselor educators and their students. Journal of Counseling & Development. 2008; 86 :18–25. doi: 10.1002/j.1556-6678.2008.tb00621.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Lester JD, Lester JD., Jr . The research paper handbook. Glenview: Goodyear Books; 1992. [ Google Scholar ]
Liesegang TJ, Shaikh M, Crook JE. The outcome of manuscripts submitted to the American Journal of Ophthalmology between 2002 and 2003. American Journal of Ophthalmology. 2007; 143 :551–560. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2006.12.004. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
McCarthy Veach P, Bartels DM, LeRoy BS. Ethical and professional challenges posed by patients with genetic concerns: A report of focus group discussions with genetic counselors, physicians, and nurses. Journal of Genetic Counseling. 2001; 10 :97–120. doi: 10.1023/A:1009487513618. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
McGaghie WC, Webster A. Scholarship, publication, and career advancement in health professions education: AMEE Guide No. 43. Medical Teacher. 2009; 31 :574–590. doi: 10.1080/01421590903050366. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Merriam-Webster . The Merriam-Webster dictionary. New York: Pocket Books; 1974. [ Google Scholar ]
Nguyen T, Nguyen TD. Authorship ethics: issues and suggested guidelines for the helping professions. Counseling and Values. 2006; 50 :208–216. doi: 10.1002/j.2161-007X.2006.tb00057.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Roig M. Plagiarism and paraphrasing criteria of college and university professors. Ethics & Behavior. 2001; 11 :307–323. doi: 10.1207/S15327019EB1103_8. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Sandler JC, Russell BL. Faculty-student collaborations: ethics and satisfaction with authorship credit. Ethics & Behavior. 2005; 15 :65–80. doi: 10.1207/s15327019eb1501_5. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Shadish W. APA ethics and student authorship on master’s theses. American Psychologist. 1994; 49 :1096. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.49.12.1096. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Stith SM, Barasch Jester S, Linn JL. Student-faculty collaborative research. Family Relations. 1992; 41 :470–474. doi: 10.2307/585594. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
The PLoS Medicine Editors. (2006). The impact factor game. PLoS Medicine , 3, e291 doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0030291. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]
Thompson B. The big picture(s) in deciding authorship order. American Psychologist. 1994; 49 :1095–1096. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.49.12.1095. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Thompson PJ. How to choose the right journal for your manuscript. Chest. 2007; 132 :1073–1076. doi: 10.1378/chest.07-1340. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
United States Copyright Office. (2008). Copyright basics . https://doi.org/www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.pdf . Accessed 1/14/2009.
Vogel K, Murthy VS, Dudley B, Grubs RE, Gettig E, Ford A, et al. The use of family health histories to address health disparities in an African-American community. Health Promotion Practice. 2007; 8 :350–357. doi: 10.1177/1524839906293395. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Wager E, Parkin EC, Tamber PS. Are reviewers suggested by authors as good as those chosen by editors? Results of a rater-blinded, retrospective study. BMC Medicine. 2006; 30 :13. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-4-13. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Weil J. Peer review: an essential step in the publishing process. Journal of Genetic Counseling. 2004; 13 :183–187. doi: 10.1023/B:JOGC.0000028252.93942.40. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Link to facebook
Link to linkedin
Link to twitter
Link to youtube
Writing Tips

The Ultimate Guide to Getting Your Thesis Published in a Journal

7-minute read

25th February 2023

Writing your thesis and getting it published are huge accomplishments. However, publishing your thesis in an academic journal is another journey for scholars. Beyond how much hard work, time, and research you invest, having your findings published in a scholarly journal is vital for your reputation as a scholar and also advances research findings within your field.

This guide will walk you through how to make sure your thesis is ready for publication in a journal. We’ll go over how to prepare for pre-publication, how to submit your research, and what to do after acceptance.

Pre-Publication Preparations

Understanding the publishing process.

Ideally, you have already considered what type of publication outlet you want your thesis research to appear in. If not, it’s best to do this so you can tailor your writing and overall presentation to fit that publication outlet’s expectations. When selecting an outlet for your research, consider the following:

● How well will my research fit the journal?

● Are the reputation and quality of this journal high?

● Who is this journal’s readership/audience?

● How long does it take the journal to respond to a submission?

● What’s the journal’s rejection rate?

Once you finish writing, revising, editing, and proofreading your work (which can take months or years), expect the publication process to be an additional three months or so.

Revising Your Thesis

Your thesis will need to be thoroughly revised, reworked, reorganized, and edited before a journal will accept it. Journals have specific requirements for all submissions, so read everything on a journal’s submission requirements page before you submit. Make a checklist of all the requirements to be sure you don’t overlook anything. Failing to meet the submission requirements could result in your paper being rejected.

Areas for Improvement

No doubt, the biggest challenge academics face in this journey is reducing the word count of their thesis to meet journal publication requirements. Remember that the average thesis is between 60,000 and 80,000 words, not including footnotes, appendices, and references. On the other hand, the average academic journal article is 4,000 to 7,000 words. Reducing the number of words this much may seem impossible when you are staring at the year or more of research your thesis required, but remember, many have done this before, and many will do it again. You can do it too. Be patient with the process.

Additional areas of improvement include>

· having to reorganize your thesis to meet the section requirements of the journal you submit to ( abstract, intro , methods, results, and discussion).

· Possibly changing your reference system to match the journal requirements or reducing the number of references.

· Reformatting tables and figures.

· Going through an extensive editing process to make sure everything is in place and ready.

Identifying Potential Publishers

Many options exist for publishing your academic research in a journal. However, along with the many credible and legitimate publishers available online, just as many predatory publishers are out there looking to take advantage of academics. Be sure to always check unfamiliar publishers’ credentials before commencing the process. If in doubt, ask your mentor or peer whether they think the publisher is legitimate, or you can use Think. Check. Submit .

If you need help identifying which journals your research is best suited to, there are many tools to help. Here’s a short list:

○ Elsevier JournalFinder

○ EndNote Matcher

○ Journal/Author Name Estimator (JANE)

○ Publish & Flourish Open Access

· The topics the journal publishes and whether your research will be a good fit.

Find this useful?

Subscribe to our newsletter and get writing tips from our editors straight to your inbox.

· The journal’s audience (whom you want to read your research).

· The types of articles the journal publishes (e.g., reviews, case studies).

· Your personal requirements (e.g., whether you’re willing to wait a long time to see your research published).

Submitting Your Thesis

Now that you have thoroughly prepared, it’s time to submit your thesis for publication. This can also be a long process, depending on peer review feedback.

Preparing Your Submission

Many publishers require you to write and submit a cover letter along with your research. The cover letter is your sales pitch to the journal’s editor. In the letter, you should not only introduce your work but also emphasize why it’s new, important, and worth the journal’s time to publish. Be sure to check the journal’s website to see whether submission requires you to include specific information in your cover letter, such as a list of reviewers.

Whenever you submit your thesis for publication in a journal article, it should be in its “final form” – that is, completely ready for publication. Do not submit your thesis if it has not been thoroughly edited, formatted, and proofread. Specifically, check that you’ve met all the journal-specific requirements to avoid rejection.

Navigating the Peer Review Process

Once you submit your thesis to the journal, it will undergo the peer review process. This process may vary among journals, but in general, peer reviews all address the same points. Once submitted, your paper will go through the relevant editors and offices at the journal, then one or more scholars will peer-review it. They will submit their reviews to the journal, which will use the information in its final decision (to accept or reject your submission).

While many academics wait for an acceptance letter that says “no revisions necessary,” this verdict does not appear very often. Instead, the publisher will likely give you a list of necessary revisions based on peer review feedback (these revisions could be major, minor, or a combination of the two). The purpose of the feedback is to verify and strengthen your research. When you respond to the feedback, keep these tips in mind:

● Always be respectful and polite in your responses, even if you disagree.

● If you do disagree, be prepared to provide supporting evidence.

● Respond to all the comments, questions, and feedback in a clear and organized manner.

● Make sure you have sufficient time to make any changes (e.g., whether you will need to conduct additional experiments).

After Publication

Once the journal accepts your article officially, with no further revisions needed, take a moment to enjoy the fruits of your hard work. After all, having your work appear in a distinguished journal is not an easy feat. Once you’ve finished celebrating, it’s time to promote your work. Here’s how you can do that:

● Connect with other experts online (like their posts, follow them, and comment on their work).

● Email your academic mentors.

● Share your article on social media so others in your field may see your work.

● Add the article to your LinkedIn publications.

● Respond to any comments with a “Thank you.”

Getting your thesis research published in a journal is a long process that goes from reworking your thesis to promoting your article online. Be sure you take your time in the pre-publication process so you don’t have to make lots of revisions. You can do this by thoroughly revising, editing, formatting, and proofreading your article.

During this process, make sure you and your co-authors (if any) are going over one another’s work and having outsiders read it to make sure no comma is out of place.

What are the benefits of getting your thesis published?

Having your thesis published builds your reputation as a scholar in your field. It also means you are contributing to the body of work in your field by promoting research and communication with other scholars.

How long does it typically take to get a thesis published?

Once you have finished writing, revising, editing, formatting, and proofreading your thesis – processes that can add up to months or years of work – publication can take around three months. The exact length of time will depend on the journal you submit your work to and the peer review feedback timeline.

How can I ensure the quality of my thesis when attempting to get it published?

If you want to make sure your thesis is of the highest quality, consider having professionals proofread it before submission (some journals even require submissions to be professionally proofread). Proofed has helped thousands of researchers proofread their theses. Check out our free trial today.

Share this article:

Post A New Comment

Got content that needs a quick turnaround? Let us polish your work. Explore our editorial business services.

9-minute read

How to Use Infographics to Boost Your Presentation

Is your content getting noticed? Capturing and maintaining an audience’s attention is a challenge when...

8-minute read

Why Interactive PDFs Are Better for Engagement

Are you looking to enhance engagement and captivate your audience through your professional documents? Interactive...

Seven Key Strategies for Voice Search Optimization

Voice search optimization is rapidly shaping the digital landscape, requiring content professionals to adapt their...

4-minute read

Five Creative Ways to Showcase Your Digital Portfolio

Are you a creative freelancer looking to make a lasting impression on potential clients or...

How to Ace Slack Messaging for Contractors and Freelancers

Effective professional communication is an important skill for contractors and freelancers navigating remote work environments....

3-minute read

How to Insert a Text Box in a Google Doc

Google Docs is a powerful collaborative tool, and mastering its features can significantly enhance your...

Make sure your writing is the best it can be with our expert English proofreading and editing.

The Writing Center • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Thesis Statements

What this handout is about.

This handout describes what a thesis statement is, how thesis statements work in your writing, and how you can craft or refine one for your draft.

Introduction

Writing in college often takes the form of persuasion—convincing others that you have an interesting, logical point of view on the subject you are studying. Persuasion is a skill you practice regularly in your daily life. You persuade your roommate to clean up, your parents to let you borrow the car, your friend to vote for your favorite candidate or policy. In college, course assignments often ask you to make a persuasive case in writing. You are asked to convince your reader of your point of view. This form of persuasion, often called academic argument, follows a predictable pattern in writing. After a brief introduction of your topic, you state your point of view on the topic directly and often in one sentence. This sentence is the thesis statement, and it serves as a summary of the argument you’ll make in the rest of your paper.

What is a thesis statement?

A thesis statement:

tells the reader how you will interpret the significance of the subject matter under discussion.
is a road map for the paper; in other words, it tells the reader what to expect from the rest of the paper.
directly answers the question asked of you. A thesis is an interpretation of a question or subject, not the subject itself. The subject, or topic, of an essay might be World War II or Moby Dick; a thesis must then offer a way to understand the war or the novel.
makes a claim that others might dispute.
is usually a single sentence near the beginning of your paper (most often, at the end of the first paragraph) that presents your argument to the reader. The rest of the paper, the body of the essay, gathers and organizes evidence that will persuade the reader of the logic of your interpretation.

If your assignment asks you to take a position or develop a claim about a subject, you may need to convey that position or claim in a thesis statement near the beginning of your draft. The assignment may not explicitly state that you need a thesis statement because your instructor may assume you will include one. When in doubt, ask your instructor if the assignment requires a thesis statement. When an assignment asks you to analyze, to interpret, to compare and contrast, to demonstrate cause and effect, or to take a stand on an issue, it is likely that you are being asked to develop a thesis and to support it persuasively. (Check out our handout on understanding assignments for more information.)

How do I create a thesis?

A thesis is the result of a lengthy thinking process. Formulating a thesis is not the first thing you do after reading an essay assignment. Before you develop an argument on any topic, you have to collect and organize evidence, look for possible relationships between known facts (such as surprising contrasts or similarities), and think about the significance of these relationships. Once you do this thinking, you will probably have a “working thesis” that presents a basic or main idea and an argument that you think you can support with evidence. Both the argument and your thesis are likely to need adjustment along the way.

Writers use all kinds of techniques to stimulate their thinking and to help them clarify relationships or comprehend the broader significance of a topic and arrive at a thesis statement. For more ideas on how to get started, see our handout on brainstorming .

How do I know if my thesis is strong?

If there’s time, run it by your instructor or make an appointment at the Writing Center to get some feedback. Even if you do not have time to get advice elsewhere, you can do some thesis evaluation of your own. When reviewing your first draft and its working thesis, ask yourself the following :

Do I answer the question? Re-reading the question prompt after constructing a working thesis can help you fix an argument that misses the focus of the question. If the prompt isn’t phrased as a question, try to rephrase it. For example, “Discuss the effect of X on Y” can be rephrased as “What is the effect of X on Y?”
Have I taken a position that others might challenge or oppose? If your thesis simply states facts that no one would, or even could, disagree with, it’s possible that you are simply providing a summary, rather than making an argument.
Is my thesis statement specific enough? Thesis statements that are too vague often do not have a strong argument. If your thesis contains words like “good” or “successful,” see if you could be more specific: why is something “good”; what specifically makes something “successful”?
Does my thesis pass the “So what?” test? If a reader’s first response is likely to be “So what?” then you need to clarify, to forge a relationship, or to connect to a larger issue.
Does my essay support my thesis specifically and without wandering? If your thesis and the body of your essay do not seem to go together, one of them has to change. It’s okay to change your working thesis to reflect things you have figured out in the course of writing your paper. Remember, always reassess and revise your writing as necessary.
Does my thesis pass the “how and why?” test? If a reader’s first response is “how?” or “why?” your thesis may be too open-ended and lack guidance for the reader. See what you can add to give the reader a better take on your position right from the beginning.

Suppose you are taking a course on contemporary communication, and the instructor hands out the following essay assignment: “Discuss the impact of social media on public awareness.” Looking back at your notes, you might start with this working thesis:

Social media impacts public awareness in both positive and negative ways.

You can use the questions above to help you revise this general statement into a stronger thesis.

Do I answer the question? You can analyze this if you rephrase “discuss the impact” as “what is the impact?” This way, you can see that you’ve answered the question only very generally with the vague “positive and negative ways.”
Have I taken a position that others might challenge or oppose? Not likely. Only people who maintain that social media has a solely positive or solely negative impact could disagree.
Is my thesis statement specific enough? No. What are the positive effects? What are the negative effects?
Does my thesis pass the “how and why?” test? No. Why are they positive? How are they positive? What are their causes? Why are they negative? How are they negative? What are their causes?
Does my thesis pass the “So what?” test? No. Why should anyone care about the positive and/or negative impact of social media?

After thinking about your answers to these questions, you decide to focus on the one impact you feel strongly about and have strong evidence for:

Because not every voice on social media is reliable, people have become much more critical consumers of information, and thus, more informed voters.

This version is a much stronger thesis! It answers the question, takes a specific position that others can challenge, and it gives a sense of why it matters.

Let’s try another. Suppose your literature professor hands out the following assignment in a class on the American novel: Write an analysis of some aspect of Mark Twain’s novel Huckleberry Finn. “This will be easy,” you think. “I loved Huckleberry Finn!” You grab a pad of paper and write:

Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn is a great American novel.

You begin to analyze your thesis:

Do I answer the question? No. The prompt asks you to analyze some aspect of the novel. Your working thesis is a statement of general appreciation for the entire novel.

Think about aspects of the novel that are important to its structure or meaning—for example, the role of storytelling, the contrasting scenes between the shore and the river, or the relationships between adults and children. Now you write:

In Huckleberry Finn, Mark Twain develops a contrast between life on the river and life on the shore.

Do I answer the question? Yes!
Have I taken a position that others might challenge or oppose? Not really. This contrast is well-known and accepted.
Is my thesis statement specific enough? It’s getting there–you have highlighted an important aspect of the novel for investigation. However, it’s still not clear what your analysis will reveal.
Does my thesis pass the “how and why?” test? Not yet. Compare scenes from the book and see what you discover. Free write, make lists, jot down Huck’s actions and reactions and anything else that seems interesting.
Does my thesis pass the “So what?” test? What’s the point of this contrast? What does it signify?”

After examining the evidence and considering your own insights, you write:

Through its contrasting river and shore scenes, Twain’s Huckleberry Finn suggests that to find the true expression of American democratic ideals, one must leave “civilized” society and go back to nature.

This final thesis statement presents an interpretation of a literary work based on an analysis of its content. Of course, for the essay itself to be successful, you must now present evidence from the novel that will convince the reader of your interpretation.

Works consulted

We consulted these works while writing this handout. This is not a comprehensive list of resources on the handout’s topic, and we encourage you to do your own research to find additional publications. Please do not use this list as a model for the format of your own reference list, as it may not match the citation style you are using. For guidance on formatting citations, please see the UNC Libraries citation tutorial . We revise these tips periodically and welcome feedback.

Anson, Chris M., and Robert A. Schwegler. 2010. The Longman Handbook for Writers and Readers , 6th ed. New York: Longman.

Lunsford, Andrea A. 2015. The St. Martin’s Handbook , 8th ed. Boston: Bedford/St Martin’s.

Ramage, John D., John C. Bean, and June Johnson. 2018. The Allyn & Bacon Guide to Writing , 8th ed. New York: Pearson.

Ruszkiewicz, John J., Christy Friend, Daniel Seward, and Maxine Hairston. 2010. The Scott, Foresman Handbook for Writers , 9th ed. Boston: Pearson Education.

You may reproduce it for non-commercial use if you use the entire handout and attribute the source: The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Make a Gift

From Thesis to Journal Articles: Expert Tips on Publishing in PubMed

Soon after concluding a dissertation, researchers set their eyes on getting published! Publishing in top-notch, peer reviewed journals that are archived by PubMed is indeed a dream for every researcher. Articles published and hosted by PubMed serve as measurable touchstones that demonstrate scholarly accomplishments. However, heading into the world of journal publications immediately after authoring a thesis is not an easy feat! Right from determining what to publish, how many papers can be written from the thesis to deciding where to publish them, everything needs to be planned wisely.

How Does a Thesis Differ From a Manuscript?

One of the very first things to understand is that a thesis cannot be straightforwardly translated into an article. Here’s why there has to be a lot of rewriting. A thesis is drafted based on academic requirements. It has chapters, and can be lengthy with no word limit as such. Authors have to present all their results including raw data with complete description of designs, methods, and experimental protocols. On the other hand, authors have to write an article/manuscript according to the journal guidelines with strict adherence to the style and format. Every section has to be succinct and coherent. Authors should report only selective and most relevant findings to make the article impressive!

How to Adapt a Thesis Into a Manuscript

1. If your thesis focuses on diverse research objectives, narrow down the focus on a single question.

2. Based on your research topic, identify an appropriate target journal. Match your objectives with the aims and scope of the journal.

3. Pay attention to your writing style. Check the recommendations made by the journal including the suggested structure and reference style.

4. Journal articles are typically much shorter in length (4000 to 7000 words) and more concise than a thesis. Therefore, you have to trim the length and make them crisper. Instead of simply cutting and pasting pieces from your thesis, it is always better to rewrite every section. Repurpose selected segments of your thesis while focusing on the main findings you want to convey to your readers.

5. Use your thesis introduction to write the abstract. Clearly state the aim of your study, the relevance of your research, methodologies used, the main findings, and a short concluding statement as to whether your objective were met.

6. Your introduction must provide the rationale and context for your research keeping in mind the scope of the target journal. Cite the most important and recent literature . Select references that directly focus on the research findings you plan to present. Blend in your literature together by grouping and citing similar studies with a common description. For example: Several studies have reported enhanced signaling and neuroprotection in association with blackberry supplementation [12-18].

7. While writing your methods section, remember that editors or reviewers may not require every detail for methods that have been validated and used in previously published papers. Keep this section brief while ensuring that there is sufficient description for methods that are novel. This helps in avoiding any concerns related to research reproducibility. Affirm that you provide the most pertinent information. For instance your sampling method, selection criteria for inclusion or exclusion for participants, data analysis methods etc.

8. Include only those results that are most specific to your research question. Present and exclusively discuss findings that are most interesting and relevant to the research objectives stated in the introduction section. Use tables and figures to display your results in a more effective manner. Club literature based on whether they support or refute your claims and findings.

9. Summarize your key findings. Briefly mention any limitations or shortcomings of the study. Emphasize what your study means in line with the aims of the journal.

10. Cite the most relevant and recent references in the correct format. Reference managers come in handy when you want to quickly reformat them according to the journal style guide. Watch out for inconsistencies with references while editing your thesis.

Step-by-Step Guide to Submitting and Publishing in PubMed

Once your article is ready the next logical step is publishing the article in the target journal. Furthermore, for several researchers and authors getting their articles indexed in PubMed is a high-priority goal. There are several ways in which articles are submitted and published in PubMed . PubMed-indexed journals may submit and deposit all their articles directly to PubMed without any author involvement. In certain cases, the journals may become selective and publish only a subset of articles. In this scenario, the authors may request the publisher to submit their articles on their behalf. If the journals fail to do so within a span of one month after publication, authors may upload their final peer-reviewed manuscripts via the NIHMS system . Let us have a step-by-step run through of the submission process to PubMed as an individual author.

Contact Your Publisher to Address Any Copyright Issues

Before proceeding with submission to PubMed, it is important to inform and take inputs from the publisher. You can email the publisher mentioning the citation of your published article, NIH grant number/information, and requesting the following:

Ask whether the journal is willing to submit the publication or you can proceed with the same.
Ask if there is any embargo period.
Enquire about the version (usually it is the final peer reviewed manuscript) of the manuscript that can be submitted.
Ask if there any revisions or edits that need to be done prior to its submission to PubMed.

Submit Your Article

Confirm your applicability for submission with regard to the NIH public access policy.

Ensure you have all the information before proceeding for the submission. This includes grant information, citation for publication (publication date, title, journal name etc.), final peer reviewed version of the manuscript, supplementary files and the embargo period as mentioned by the publisher.

Create or sign in to your NCBI account. Enter information in all the required fields and upload your files. Carefully review the summary to cross-check if all the information you have entered is accurate. Deposit your submission.

The Post-Submission Process

NIH assigns a NIHMSID to the deposited file and converts the submission to the PMC format. NIH then sends it to the reviewing author. The reviewing author approves the submission, links funding, and finalizes the public release date. Following this, NIH converts the submission to the final PMC format. NIH assigns the article a PMCID as soon as the reviewer approves PMC-ready file in NIHMS. The full text version of the manuscript is now freely accessible in PMC as per the public release date.

Still have more questions about publishing your article in PubMed ? Post your queries here and our experts will be happy to answer them! You can also visit our Q&A forum for frequently asked questions related to research writing and publishing answered by our team that comprises subject-matter experts, eminent researchers, and publication experts.

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

What is Academic Integrity and How to Uphold it [FREE CHECKLIST]

Ensuring Academic Integrity and Transparency in Academic Research: A comprehensive checklist for researchers

Academic integrity is the foundation upon which the credibility and value of scientific findings are…

AI vs. AI: Can we outsmart image manipulation in research?

AI in Academia

AI vs. AI: How to detect image manipulation and avoid academic misconduct

The scientific community is facing a new frontier of controversy as artificial intelligence (AI) is…

Diversify Your Learning: Why inclusive academic curricula matter

Diversity and Inclusion

Need for Diversifying Academic Curricula: Embracing missing voices and marginalized perspectives

In classrooms worldwide, a single narrative often dominates, leaving many students feeling lost. These stories,…

Understand Academic Burnout: Spot the Signs & Reclaim Your Focus

Career Corner
Trending Now

Recognizing the signs: A guide to overcoming academic burnout

As the sun set over the campus, casting long shadows through the library windows, Alex…

How to Promote an Inclusive and Equitable Lab Environment

Reassessing the Lab Environment to Create an Equitable and Inclusive Space

The pursuit of scientific discovery has long been fueled by diverse minds and perspectives. Yet…

Metrics That Matter: Redefining research success beyond impact factors

Breaking the Mold: Understanding free format submissions and their adoption by…

Are Secondary Submissions Unethical? — 4 reasons to not republish translated articles

13 Tips to Prepare for Your PhD Dissertation Defense

Sign-up to read more

Subscribe for free to get unrestricted access to all our resources on research writing and academic publishing including:

2000+ blog articles
50+ Webinars
10+ Expert podcasts
50+ Infographics
10+ Checklists
Research Guides

We hate spam too. We promise to protect your privacy and never spam you.

I am looking for Editing/ Proofreading services for my manuscript Tentative date of next journal submission:

As a researcher, what do you consider most when choosing an image manipulation detector?

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Identifying Thesis Statements, Claims, and Evidence

Thesis statements, claims, and evidence, introduction.

The three important parts of an argumentative essay are:

A thesis statement is a sentence, usually in the first paragraph of an article, that expresses the article’s main point. It is not a fact; it’s a statement that you could disagree with. Therefore, the author has to convince you that the statement is correct.
Claims are statements that support the thesis statement, but like the thesis statement, are not facts. Because a claim is not a fact, it requires supporting evidence.
Evidence is factual information that shows a claim is true. Usually, writers have to conduct their own research to find evidence that supports their ideas. The evidence may include statistical (numerical) information, the opinions of experts, studies, personal experience, scholarly articles, or reports.

Each paragraph in the article is numbered at the beginning of the first sentence.

Paragraphs 1-7

Identifying the Thesis Statement. Paragraph 2 ends with this thesis statement: “People’s prior convictions should not be held against them in their pursuit of higher learning.” It is a thesis statement for three reasons:

It is the article’s main argument.
It is not a fact. Someone could think that peoples’ prior convictions should affect their access to higher education.
It requires evidence to show that it is true.

Finding Claims. A claim is statement that supports a thesis statement. Like a thesis, it is not a fact so it needs to be supported by evidence.

You have already identified the article’s thesis statement: “People’s prior convictions should not be held against them in their pursuit of higher learning.”

Like the thesis, a claim be an idea that the author believes to be true, but others may not agree. For this reason, a claim needs support.

Question 1. Can you find a claim in paragraph 3? Look for a statement that might be true, but needs to be supported by evidence.

Finding Evidence.

Paragraphs 5-7 offer one type of evidence to support the claim you identified in the last question. Reread paragraphs 5-7.

Question 2. Which word best describes the kind of evidence included in those paragraphs: A report, a study, personal experience of the author, statistics, or the opinion of an expert?

Paragraphs 8-10

Finding Claims

Paragraph 8 makes two claims:

“The United States needs to have more of this transformative power of education.”
“The country [the United States] incarcerates more people and at a higher rate than any other nation in the world.”

Finding Evidence

Paragraphs 8 and 9 include these statistics as evidence:

“The U.S. accounts for less than 5 percent of the world population but nearly 25 percent of the incarcerated population around the globe.”
“Roughly 2.2 million people in the United States are essentially locked away in cages. About 1 in 5 of those people are locked up for drug offenses.”

Question 3. Does this evidence support claim 1 from paragraph 8 (about the transformative power of education) or claim 2 (about the U.S.’s high incarceration rate)?

Question 4. Which word best describes this kind of evidence: A report, a study, personal experience of the author, statistics, or the opinion of an expert?

Paragraphs 11-13

Remember that in paragraph 2, Andrisse writes that:

“People’s prior convictions should not be held against them in their pursuit of higher learning.” (Thesis statement)
“More must be done to remove the various barriers that exist between formerly incarcerated individuals such as myself and higher education.” (Claim)

Now, review paragraphs 11-13 (Early life of crime). In these paragraphs, Andrisse shares more of his personal story.

Question 5. Do you think his personal story is evidence for statement 1 above, statement 2, both, or neither one?

Question 6. Is yes, which one(s)?

Question 7. Do you think his personal story is good evidence? Does it persuade you to agree with him?

Paragraphs 14-16

Listed below are some claims that Andrisse makes in paragraph 14. Below each claim, please write the supporting evidence from paragraphs 15 and 16. If you can’t find any evidence, write “none.”

Claim: The more education a person has, the higher their income.

Claim: Similarly, the more education a person has, the less likely they are to return to prison.

Paragraphs 17-19

Evaluating Evidence

In these paragraphs, Andrisse returns to his personal story. He explains how his father’s illness inspired him to become a doctor and shares that he was accepted to only one of six biomedical graduate programs.

Do you think that this part of Andrisse’s story serves as evidence (support) for any claims that you’ve identified so far? Or does it support his general thesis that “people’s prior convictions should not be held against them in pursuit of higher learning?” Please explain your answer.

Paragraphs 20-23

Andrisse uses his personal experience to repeat a claim he makes in paragraph 3, that “more must be done to remove the various barriers that exist between formerly incarcerated individuals such as myself and higher education.”

To support this statement, he has to show that barriers exist. One barrier he identifies is the cost of college. He then explains the advantages of offering Pell grants to incarcerated people.

What evidence in paragraphs 21-23 support his claim about the success of Pell grants?

Paragraphs 24-28 (Remove questions about drug crimes from federal aid forms)

In this section, Andrisse argues that federal aid forms should not ask students about prior drug convictions. To support that claim, he includes a statistic about students who had to answer a similar question on their college application.

What statistic does he include?

In paragraph 25, he assumes that if a question about drug convictions discourages students from applying to college, it will probably also discourage them from applying for federal aid.

What do you think about this assumption? Do you think it’s reasonable or do you think Andrisse needs stronger evidence to show that federal aid forms should not ask students about prior drug convictions?

Supporting English Language Learners in First-Year College Composition Copyright © by Breana Bayraktar is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

February 8, 2024
Academic Advice , Education Advice

Dissertation vs Thesis: Understanding the Key Differences

UOTP Marketing

Embarking on an academic journey often involves deciphering the complexities of advanced research projects like dissertations and theses. While these terms might seem interchangeable, they possess distinctive changes in the world of higher education. A fundamental distinction between a thesis and a dissertation lies in their approach to research. A thesis typically involves synthesizing existing research and knowledge in your field, while a dissertation requires conducting original research, addressing research gaps, and making a substantive contribution to the academic domain.

As you continue your higher education journey in academia, it’s critical to decipher the fundamental differences between dissertation and thesis that set them apart.

What Is a Thesis?

A thesis is a long-term academic research paper that presents an in-depth review of existing research on a specific subject. It requires extensive research, data collection, analysis, and critical interpretation of the findings. Although some undergraduate programs may mandate a thesis, it is more commonly expected in postgraduate studies, such as upon completing a master’s degree .

What Is a Dissertation?

A dissertation is a longer and more comprehensive research project based on original research. It’s a substantial piece of academic writing required for the completion of a doctoral degree . The dissertation is the culmination of years of research, study, and expertise, contributing valuable insights in a particular field of study.

Dissertation vs Thesis: Key Differences

Both theses and dissertations serve as culminating projects for program graduation, demanding a profound grasp of the research subject and analytical skills to substantiate findings. Despite these commonalities, significant differences set them apart. The key differences include:

Academic and Research Requirements

The academic requirements for a doctoral dissertation are clearly defined hypotheses, a detailed methodology section, rigorous data analysis, and a critical discussion of the results in the context of existing literature.

In contrast, the requirements for a master’s thesis include a thorough literature review, methodology, data analysis, and a conclusion that summarizes the findings.

Research requirements are also more extensive for dissertations compared to theses, as they include conducting original experiments and studies.

Length and Complexity

The length of a dissertation or a thesis varies according to the topic and the method of analysis, or it can vary based on the departmental requirements. Usually, a master’s thesis is around 40-80 pages, sometimes up to 100 pages. A dissertation, however, is significantly longer, ranging from 100 to 300 pages and sometimes up to 400.

Dissertations and theses also vary on the level of complexity. While the thesis requires a thorough literature review and analysis of existing research, it’s less complex than a dissertation. Moreover, the original research is limited, contrary to dissertations involving extensive original research (experiments and studies).

Research Objectives

The research objectives are an essential component that can guide the research project and highlight the specific goals to achieve. Moreover, they outline the grounds for pursuing a particular topic.

However, they can vary depending on the academic level and the nature of the research. In a master’s thesis, the research objectives usually focus on addressing specific research questions related to the chosen topic, to deepen the understanding of existing theories within the field of study. Contrarily, in a doctoral dissertation, the research objectives are broader and are formulated to address complex research gaps, propose new theories, and contribute to the academic field.

Timeframe and Milestones

The timeframe depends on internal factors like the student’s work pace and personal circumstances and external factors like the complexity of the subject, availability of resources, and academic level. While we can’t give a definitive answer, it usually takes a couple of semesters or 1-2 years to complete a master’s thesis. On the contrary, a doctoral dissertation is more time-consuming and can take 4-7 years to complete.

Although there are many similarities between the milestones for completing a thesis and a dissertation, such as topic selection, literature review, and data collection, their differences lie in the higher complexity of doctoral dissertations, including original research, review by the advisory committee, and publication.

Review and Approval Process

The review and approval process is vital to evaluate the quality of research, analysis, and presentation. Although the overall process is similar for both a master’s thesis and a doctoral dissertation, the scrutiny applied to dissertations is notably more rigorous. For a master’s thesis, a committee of professors or advisors within the university’s department evaluates the thesis for adherence to academic standards, clarity, and coherence. Following the review, approval is granted to the thesis if the evaluators are content with the student’s work. On the other hand, for a doctoral dissertation, the review process includes a committee of experts in the field, often external reviewers, to assess the dissertation’s quality, methodology, and contribution to the academic field. The approval process is more challenging as it may require defending the dissertation orally and answering questions from the committee members and to a broader audience than a master’s thesis presentation.

Potential for Publication

Lastly, one of the main differences between a dissertation and a thesis is the potential for publication. As the dissertation is more extensive and requires original research contributing to the academic field, theses are less likely to be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Although a master’s thesis is more narrowly focused, it can still be published as a single article. In contrast, a doctoral dissertation is generally equivalent to at least three articles.

Interested in pursuing a degree?

Fill out the form and get all admission information you need regarding your chosen program.

This will only take a moment.

Message Received!

Thank you for reaching out to us. we will review your message and get right back to you within 24 hours. if there is an urgent matter and you need to speak to someone immediately you can call at the following phone number:.

By clicking the Send me more information button above, I represent that I am 18+ years of age, that I have read and agreed to the Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy , and agree to receive email marketing and phone calls from UOTP. I understand that my consent is not required to apply for online degree enrollment. To speak with a representative without providing consent, please call +1 (202) 274-2300

We value your privacy.

The Scope of Dissertation vs Thesis

While both require extensive research and dedication, the thesis has a narrower scope on a specific topic within the field of study. It aims to illustrate the student’s mastery of the subject matter, ability to synthesize existing research, and ability to present coherent arguments. On the other hand, the dissertation has a broader scope , encompassing a comprehensive analysis of a complex research problem or exploring interconnected topics in the field. It aims to showcase the student’s expertise and ability to conduct original and independent research and contribute new knowledge in the field.

As we draw the curtain in exploring the factors that differentiate a thesis and a dissertation, it becomes evident that both academic endeavors are crucial in unraveling discoveries. A master’s thesis showcases analytical finesse and a deep understanding of existing theories. And a doctoral dissertation displays new groundbreaking insights, original research, and innovative methodologies. Therefore, while they may have substantial differences, they remain a driving force in shaping the future of academia.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs): What is the main difference between a dissertation and a thesis?

While many factors differentiate a dissertation and a thesis, the main difference is their academic level. A thesis is usually required at the end of a master’s degree program. In contrast, a dissertation is necessary to complete a doctoral degree.

How long does it take to complete a thesis or a dissertation?

The time it takes to complete a thesis or a dissertation depends on the complexity of the research, the availability of resources, and the student’s work pace. Usually, it takes a couple of semesters to complete a thesis at the end of a master’s program. In contrast, completing a doctoral dissertation can take four to seven years.

Is there a difference in the level of research expected in a dissertation vs a thesis?

Although a thesis requires a significant amount of research literature review and analysis of existing studies, a dissertation demands a higher level of original research through identifying research gaps, developing new hypotheses, conducting experiments, and collecting and analyzing data.

Are there any specific publication or accessibility differences between dissertations and theses?

Yes, there are specific publication and accessibility differences between dissertations and theses. Doctoral dissertations are usually published and made public through university libraries or digital repositories. Whereas a master’s thesis is less frequently published in academic journals compared to doctoral dissertations. Theses are often made available within the university’s library or department.

Share it with your friends!

Explore more.

Accounting vs. Finance Degree: Which Major to Choose?

12 Important Bookkeeping Skills You Need for a Successful Career

Recent resources.

What Can You Do With a Hospitality Management Degree? Best Hospitality Careers

International studies degree opens doors

What Can You Do with an International Studies Degree [2024]

9 Benefits of Learning a Second Language

Associate’s vs. Bachelor’s: Which One To Choose?

INTERESTED IN LEARNING MORE?

Chat with an Admissions Officer Now!

Associates Degree
Bachelors Degrees
Masters Degrees
Doctoral Degrees
Faculty & Staff
Accreditation
Student Experience

QUICK LINKS

Admission Requirements
Military Students
Financial Aid

Request More Information

Main navigation

Graduate Students
Faculty & Staff
General requirements

Manuscript-Based (Article-Based) Theses

Initial Thesis Submission
Thesis examination
Doctoral oral defence
Final Thesis Submission
Thesis Writing and Support Resources
Letters of Completion/PGWP

FAQ on manuscript-based theses

As an alternative to the traditional format, a thesis may be presented as a collection of scholarly papers of which the student is the first author or co-first author. A manuscript-based doctoral thesis must include the text of a minimum of two manuscripts published, submitted or to be submitted for publication. A manuscript-based Master’s thesis must include the text of one or more manuscripts. Articles must be formatted according to the requirements described below. Note that a manuscript-based thesis must follow the general structure of a thesis as explained here . An FAQ explaining the difference between a standard and a manuscript-based thesis is available here .

Manuscripts for publication in journals are frequently very concise documents. A thesis, however, is expected to consist of more detailed, scholarly work. A manuscript-based thesis will be evaluated by the examiners as a unified, logically coherent document in the same way a traditional thesis is evaluated. Publication of manuscripts, or acceptance for publication by a peer-reviewed journal, does not guarantee that the thesis will be found acceptable for the degree sought.

A manuscript-based thesis must:

be presented with uniform font size, line spacing, and margin sizes (see Thesis Format under Preparation of a Thesis );
conform to all other requirements listed under Thesis Components on the Preparation of a Thesis page;
contain additional text that connects the manuscript(s) in a logical progression from one chapter to the next, producing a cohesive, unitary focus, and documenting a single program of research - the manuscript(s) alone do not constitute the thesis;
stand as an integrated whole.

Any manuscripts that are under review, accepted or published in a journal must be included in your manuscript-based thesis without changes (i.e. identical to the published or submitted versions). The only change is with respect to the font/size which should be the same as the one used for the rest of the thesis for consistency and homogeneity reasons. So each chapter represents a full manuscript and has its own reference list. Then at the end of the thesis, you have a master reference list which includes all the other references cited throughout the other sections of the thesis, mostly within the general introduction but also from the general discussion.

Depending on the feedback of your examiners and/or the oral defence committee, you may be required to make revisions to your thesis before final submission. The committee’s comments must be addressed in the connecting text between chapters and/or the discussion section. You must not make any changes to the manuscripts themselves in your final thesis.

In the case of multiple-authored articles, the student must be the first author . Multiple-authored articles cannot be used in more than one thesis. In the case of students who have worked collaboratively on projects, it may be preferable for both students to write a traditional format thesis, identifying individual contributions. Consult this page for information on intellectual property and required permissions/waivers.

In the case of co-first authored articles , only one student can use the article in a manuscript-based thesis and must have a written agreement from the other co-first author student(s).

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial 4.0 International License . Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies, McGill University .

Department and University Information

Graduate and postdoctoral studies.

Is it an Article, a Book, or a Chapter in a Book? Identifying Citations: Theses, Dissertations, Conference Papers

Introduction
Journal Articles
Journal Article: APA, MLA, & Chicago Side-by-Side
Book: APA, MLA, & Chicago Side-by-Side
Chapters in Books
Chapter: APA, MLA, & Chicago Side-by-Side
Test Yourself!
Theses, Dissertations, Conference Papers

THESES & DISSERTATIONS

A thesis is written to satisfy a requirement for a Master's degree. There is almost always something in the database record or the citation that says "thesis." Frequently, the degree will be mentioned as well. The name of an advisor may be included as well as the name of the author.

Dissertations

A dissertation is written to satisfy a requirement for a Doctoral degree. Look for the word "dissertation" or the phrase, "Dissertation Abstracts." Advisors and committee members (people who write dissertations must make an oral presentation to a committee) will be mentioned.

CONFERENCE PAPERS & CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS

Conference Papers

A conference paper is both a written document and an oral presentation by the author or authors at a conference. Conference papers may or may not be published in the form of scholarly journal articles. There is usually mention of "a paper presented at the 2019 Such and Such Conference on Stuff." If published as journal articles, these citations are similar to normal journal citations.

Conference Proceedings

Conference proceedings are collections of conference papers presented at a particular conference. These are published in book form. There is usually something that says "proceedings" or "proceedings of the 2019 Such and Such Conference on Stuff." These citations are similar to normal book or book chapter citations.

<< Previous: Answers
Last Updated: Apr 6, 2023 8:16 AM
URL: https://libguides.csusb.edu/citations

Graduate Research Hub

Preparing my thesis

Incorporating your published work in your thesis

A streamlined procedure has been approved for obtaining co-author authorisation. You now only need to provide a Declaration for publication incorporated in a thesis form for the inclusion of in progress or published material in the thesis, that is completed by your Principal Supervisor and the Coordinating Author.

Accepted statuses for publications

Unpublished material not submitted for publication
Submitted for publication to [publication name] on [date]
In revision following peer review by [publication name]
Accepted for publication by [publication name] on [date]
Published by [publication name] on [date]

You may include in progress or published material written during your enrolment upon approval from your advisory committee, as part of your thesis, by having either:

“included publications", in which your publications are included as components that are distinct from the rest of the thesis, in the format described below; or
“included material” that is drawn from your publications and combined with text that is otherwise written specifically for the thesis.

In this page we refer to both these kinds of inclusion of published work as “incorporated publications”; the first format, where the publications are included as distinct components, is also known as “thesis with publications”.

The Graduate Research Training Policy (section 4.65) outlines what can be included in the thesis. Your thesis must include a literature review that clearly details the research questions and a general discussion that integrates the work and places the publications into the context of the research question.

You may have to supplement the incorporated publications with additional methods sections as they are often abbreviated in published articles. You are also encouraged to include any data and discussion that was omitted from the article as an addendum in the thesis. Where a publication is included as a distinct component, you are also encouraged to include a critical reflection on the work, which could, for example, acknowledge or address limitations or impacts of the work that have appeared since publication.

When submitting your thesis, you will be required to confirm that:

(a) the work in the incorporated publications is your own, and (b) that any co-authors give permission for the article to be included in the thesis.

To do this, you must complete the Declaration for publication incorporated in a thesis form. You will need to submit a completed form for each in progress or published work included in your thesis.

Your principal supervisor must sign the Declaration form for each publication. Where there is more than one author of a publication, at least one co-author by agreement amongst the authors, should be nominated as the coordinating author (also known as corresponding author), as defined in the University’s Authorship Policy . The coordinating author is responsible for communication between the publishers and managing communication between the co-authors. The coordinating author must maintain records of any authorship agreement. The coordinating author must also sign the Declaration form.

You must upload all completed Declaration forms as a single combined file to the Thesis Examination System when submitting your thesis for examination. The signed forms should not be included in the thesis itself. Plan well ahead to obtain the required signatures to avoid delays to your examination.

Don’t forget to include your ORCID when submitting your work to publishers, conference organisers, etc. This will help you to distinguish your research activities and outputs, and make sure you get credit for your work throughout your career.

The Preface

As detailed in the Preparation of Graduate Research Theses rules , your preface should outline:

the publication status of any incorporated publications
your contribution to any incorporated publications
any work carried out in collaboration with others
editorial assistance received
parts of the work completed outside of your candidature.

There is no prescribed format for a preface; you may wish to include a written description or a table outlining the tasks performed by others and the proportion of the contribution as a percentage.

Usually this means you will have written the initial draft and you performed any subsequent editing in response to co-authors' and editors' reviews.

As specified in the Graduate Research Training Policy , your principal supervisor and coordinating author must declare that:

(a) you are the primary author of the included material, and

(b) you contributed more than 50% of the work towards the publication.

No. You need to have contributed more than 50 per cent for it to be included. You could, however, include this paper as an appendix.

Yes. It is understood that portions of the thesis that have been published or accepted for publication will have been through an editorial process. Such editorial changes should be explicitly acknowledged.

Refer to the Authorship page for information about the requirements and responsible practice.

Format of the thesis

When including complete publications, you should use the author accepted manuscripts of articles that have been accepted or published. This is the final draft as accepted by the publishers, including any changes based on referees’ suggestions before it has undergone copy-editing, typesetting and proofing. If you are certain you will not breach your agreement with your publisher, you may include the published version in your thesis.

If you are using your author accepted manuscript, while some journals request that the version you send them includes any figures or tables at the end of the submitted document, when you reproduce the article in your thesis you should place them where they logically flow within the text. It is also recommended that you use similar formatting (e.g. line spacing, font type and size) as the rest of the thesis.

You can view suggested formats for arranging the chapters of a thesis that includes publications as distinct components here . See also example theses in the University of Melbourne repository.

In most cases it is preferred that you include a separate literature survey. Even with the literature reviews included in your publications you may find you still need to add further supplementary material if the publications do not directly address all the research questions you are trying to answer in your thesis. Your supervisors and advisory committee are best able to advise you whether the literature reviews included in your incorporated publications will meet disciplinary expectations and satisfy your examiners that you: - Have clearly detailed your research question/s and how they integrate with the current literature - Have demonstrated sufficient familiarity with, and understanding and critical appraisal of the relevant literature.

No. The policy allows the thesis to be submitted with publications, it is not a thesis by publication. You must include a literature review that clearly details the research question, and a concluding general discussion that integrates the work and places it into the context of the research questions. You should also introduce each publication that is included as a distinct component, explaining its role in the work, and, where appropriate, provide a critical reflection on its contribution.

Yes, but you must cite it correctly and indicate in the preface the source of the information (eg. that the text on page(s) xx is from [name of publication], or that chapter yy is adapted from [name of publication]. In each case you should give its publication status and your contribution to the publication). It will assist your examiners if, at the start of each chapter that includes work drawn from a publication, there is a footnote explaining where the work came from and how it has been used in the chapter. You may wish to include the entire publication as an appendix so that your examiners can see where the material came from.

Theses which include publications in a “thesis with publications” style can typically be slightly shorter; for example the typical PhD length is 80,000 words, but a PhD including publications as distinct components has a typical length of 50,000-80,000 words).
While the writing style may be more concise, there is no difference in the expected volume and requirements of work presented in theses with publications. The examination criteria remain the same whether or not publications are incorporated. Your examiners are asked to consider your thesis on its merits as an independent piece of research. Refer to the information available for examiners .
Maximum limits apply to all theses.

If you are including the list of references as part of the publication they do not need to be repeated in the overall reference list/bibliography for the thesis.

Incorporated publications can be referenced via a footnote, but if references to them are included in the bibliography an examiner may be unsure as to whether the work was completed as part of the research.

No, but you may do so if you think that it will assist readers of your thesis.

It is up to you whether you update the publication style or not. Whatever you chose, you should acknowledge your choice in the Preface, stating the differences between the publication and thesis, due to the requirements of different publishers.

Yes. Revised and resubmitted theses are examined in their entirety and the inclusion of a new incorporated publication may strengthen your response to examiners.

In most cases you should include the latest version, up to the author accepted version and update the publication status in the preface. If your examiners request changes which conflict with the editorial or peer review advice you have since received from your publisher, you may choose to address this elsewhere in your thesis, or in your written response to the examiners’ reports.

Publication suitability

A work is suitable for inclusion if the research was conducted and the publication was in progress or published during your enrolment in your current degree. This includes:

You may need to supplement this with analysis of literature published between writing the article and submitting your thesis.

All methods need to be covered to a high degree of detail in your thesis.

literature reviews where you are the primary author .
systematic reviews of a research question as a results chapter.
a protocol paper involving novel method development.
material exploring key methodological issues .

No. Only work completed during your candidature can be included in the thesis. You can cite your earlier work just like you would any work that is relevant to your research. The work should be listed in the preface of your thesis.

Yes. You will need to clearly acknowledge in the preface that its status is ‘in progress’ or, that the paper has been published but not peer reviewed.

Completing the forms

Yes. You may wish to include the entire publication as an appendix so that your examiner can see where the information came from.

Yes. All sections of the form must be completed for any multi-authored material. The coordinating author is required to reassure that all co-authors have had an opportunity to agree to the inclusion of the material in the thesis and to the contribution declared on the form. The authorship agreement template is available here.

No. You can use the figure in your thesis without completing the form but you should acknowledge the origin of the figure in the preface and appropriately cite the publication in your thesis.

No. You should provide this evidence to your advisory committee when you are discussing the proposed format for your thesis. Your principal supervisor must sign the Declaration for publication incorporated in a thesis form which confirms their agreement to the inclusion of any publication/s. The coordinating author will need to sign the form for any multi-authored material.

You can use Adobe Acrobat's 'Combine Files' tool which will allow you to combine files of different filetypes into a PDF. Alternatively, you can open a PDF copy of a file and then use the 'Organise Pages' tool which will allow you to drag additional pages where you can then save it as a single file.

iThenticate report

You should run your whole thesis through iThenticate, including the chapters comprised wholly or partly of your published work. You can then exclude the specific matching publication source/s that correspond to the publications you have included in your thesis in a “thesis with publications” style. This means that the thesis chapter or publication is reviewed against the other literature in the repository, but not matched to itself. You should only exclude matching sources that are articles which you have appropriately included. You should outline and explain any filters and exclusions you applied in iThenticate in an accompanying declaration which you can also upload to TES.

You should not exclude publications from which you have included material (but not the complete publication), as the iThenticate report will then show where the material is present in the thesis, allowing your supervisors and Chair of Examiners to verify that it has been included appropriately.

Further information on the use of iThenticate can be found here: https://gateway.research.unimelb.edu.au/funding-contracts-and-ethics/ethics-and-integrity/research-integrity/ithenticate-text-matching-tool

The examination

The criteria for examination remain the same whether or not publications are incorporated. See the Graduate Research Training Policy for more information. You can also view the information for examiners here: https://gradresearch.unimelb.edu.au/staff#examiner-information .

If the publication status of your article changes between submission for examination and submission of your final thesis, it is appropriate to include the most recent version (up to the author-accepted version). You should also update the preface to reflect the new status. If you are submitting a list of corrections for approval and/or resubmitting for re-examination you should also note this in your index of changes.

Examples of theses with publications

The following are theses available openly or with University of Melbourne log-in through the University of Melbourne repository that include publications as distinct components in a “thesis with publications” style.

Al Zein, Eza (2019). Taskscape: Caring for Migrant Materials . http://hdl.handle.net/11343/235841

Arundel, Jonathan Paul (2015) The spatio-temporal distribution of honey bees and floral resources in Australia . http://hdl.handle.net/11343/59612

Bamford, Nicholas James (2016) Relationships between diet, obesity and insulin dysregulation in horses and ponies. http://hdl.handle.net/11343/148423

Bibb, Jennifer Louise (2016) Musical recovery: the role of group singing in regaining healthy relationships with music to promote mental health recovery. http://hdl.handle.net/11343/124271

Burfurd, Ingrid Ellen (2018) Beliefs and learning in the laboratory: essays in experimental economics . http://hdl.handle.net/11343/219180

Fan, Yi (2019) Quantification of mandibular morphological changes in 3D . http://hdl.handle.net/11343/225588

Kriesner, Peter (2017) Wolbachia fitness benefits and symbiont interactions in Drosophila . http://hdl.handle.net/11343/207959

Mody, Fallon (2019) Doctors down under: European medical migrants in Victoria (Australia), 1930-60 . http://hdl.handle.net/11343/221550

Nencini, Sara (2018) Tackling bone pain at the source: identifying and exploring new therapeutic targets . http://hdl.handle.net/11343/216858

Pan, Xuan (2018) Graphene quantum dot based electronic devices . http://hdl.handle.net/11343/222013

Seibt, Susanne (2018) In-situ investigations of molecular self-assembly using microfluidics. http://hdl.handle.net/11343/214671

Smith, Merryn (2018) Non-structural carbohydrate storage and use in eucalypt trees of south-east Australia. http://hdl.handle.net/11343/221163

Uddin, Shihab (2019) Functional aspects of root and leaf development in dryland crop water use under elevated CO2 . http://hdl.handle.net/11343/219849

Vahedi, Andisheh (2018) The work-family interface and child mental health: longitudinal associations via family functioning across childhood. http://hdl.handle.net/11343/217236

Al Zein, Eza (2019) Taskscape: Caring for Migrant Materials . http://hdl.handle.net/11343/235841

Schlichthorst, Marisa (2020) Engaging men in conversations about masculinity and suicide – An evaluation of the Man Up social media campaign . http://hdl.handle.net/11343/265962

Resources for candidates
Orientation and induction
Mapping my degree
Principles for infrastructure support
Peer activities
Change my commencement date
Meeting expectations
Working with my supervisors
Responsible Research & Research Integrity
Guidelines for external supervisors
Pre-confirmation
Confirmation
At risk of unsatisfactory progress
Unsatisfactory progress
Add or drop coursework subjects
Apply for leave
Return from leave
Apply for Study Away
Return from Study Away
Change my study rate
Check my candidature status
Change my current supervisors
Request an evidence of enrolment or evidence of qualification statement
Change my project details
Change department
Transfer to another graduate research degree
Late submission
Withdraw from my research degree
Check the status of a request
Re-enrolment
Advice on requesting changes
Extension of candidature
Lapse candidature
How to cancel a form in my.unimelb
Resolving issues
Taking leave
About Study Away
Finishing on time
Accepting an offer for a joint PhD online
Tenured Study Spaces (TSS) Usage Guidelines
Tenured Study Spaces Procedures
Research skills
Academic writing and communication skills
Building professional and academic networks
Research internships
Commercialising my research
Supplementary PhD Programs
Writing my thesis
Examples of thesis and chapter formats when including publications
Thesis with creative works
Research Integrity in my Thesis
Graduate researchers and digital assistance tools
TES Statuses
Submitting my thesis
Depositing multiple components for your final thesis record
The Chancellor's Prize
TES Graduate Researcher FAQs
Career planning
Publishing my research
Getting support
Key graduate research contacts
Melbourne Research Experience Survey
Quality Indicators for Learning and Teaching (QILT)
Current Students

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

View all journals
Explore content
About the journal
Publish with us
Sign up for alerts
Published: 08 May 2024

Accurate structure prediction of biomolecular interactions with AlphaFold 3

Josh Abramson ORCID: orcid.org/0009-0000-3496-6952 1 na1 ,
Jonas Adler ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9928-3407 1 na1 ,
Jack Dunger 1 na1 ,
Richard Evans ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4675-8469 1 na1 ,
Tim Green ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3227-1505 1 na1 ,
Alexander Pritzel ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4233-9040 1 na1 ,
Olaf Ronneberger ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4266-1515 1 na1 ,
Lindsay Willmore ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4314-0778 1 na1 ,
Andrew J. Ballard ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4956-5304 1 ,
Joshua Bambrick ORCID: orcid.org/0009-0003-3908-0722 2 ,
Sebastian W. Bodenstein 1 ,
David A. Evans 1 ,
Chia-Chun Hung ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5264-9165 2 ,
Michael O’Neill 1 ,
David Reiman ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1605-7197 1 ,
Kathryn Tunyasuvunakool ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8594-1074 1 ,
Zachary Wu ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2429-9812 1 ,
Akvilė Žemgulytė 1 ,
Eirini Arvaniti 3 ,
Charles Beattie ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1840-054X 3 ,
Ottavia Bertolli ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8578-3216 3 ,
Alex Bridgland 3 ,
Alexey Cherepanov ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5227-0622 4 ,
Miles Congreve 4 ,
Alexander I. Cowen-Rivers 3 ,
Andrew Cowie ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4491-1434 3 ,
Michael Figurnov ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1386-8741 3 ,
Fabian B. Fuchs 3 ,
Hannah Gladman 3 ,
Rishub Jain 3 ,
Yousuf A. Khan ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0201-2796 3 ,
Caroline M. R. Low 4 ,
Kuba Perlin 3 ,
Anna Potapenko 3 ,
Pascal Savy 4 ,
Sukhdeep Singh 3 ,
Adrian Stecula ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6914-6743 4 ,
Ashok Thillaisundaram 3 ,
Catherine Tong ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7570-4801 4 ,
Sergei Yakneen ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7827-9839 4 ,
Ellen D. Zhong ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6345-1907 3 ,
Michal Zielinski 3 ,
Augustin Žídek ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0748-9684 3 ,
Victor Bapst 1 na2 ,
Pushmeet Kohli ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7466-7997 1 na2 ,
Max Jaderberg ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9033-2695 2 na2 ,
Demis Hassabis ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2812-9917 1 , 2 na2 &
John M. Jumper ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6169-6580 1 na2

Nature ( 2024 ) Cite this article

230k Accesses

1 Citations

1175 Altmetric

Metrics details

We are providing an unedited version of this manuscript to give early access to its findings. Before final publication, the manuscript will undergo further editing. Please note there may be errors present which affect the content, and all legal disclaimers apply.

Drug discovery
Machine learning
Protein structure predictions
Structural biology

The introduction of AlphaFold 2 1 has spurred a revolution in modelling the structure of proteins and their interactions, enabling a huge range of applications in protein modelling and design 2–6 . In this paper, we describe our AlphaFold 3 model with a substantially updated diffusion-based architecture, which is capable of joint structure prediction of complexes including proteins, nucleic acids, small molecules, ions, and modified residues. The new AlphaFold model demonstrates significantly improved accuracy over many previous specialised tools: far greater accuracy on protein-ligand interactions than state of the art docking tools, much higher accuracy on protein-nucleic acid interactions than nucleic-acid-specific predictors, and significantly higher antibody-antigen prediction accuracy than AlphaFold-Multimer v2.3 7,8 . Together these results show that high accuracy modelling across biomolecular space is possible within a single unified deep learning framework.

You have full access to this article via your institution.

Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold

De novo generation of multi-target compounds using deep generative chemistry

Augmenting large language models with chemistry tools

Author information.

These authors contributed equally: Josh Abramson, Jonas Adler, Jack Dunger, Richard Evans, Tim Green, Alexander Pritzel, Olaf Ronneberger, Lindsay Willmore

These authors jointly supervised this work: Victor Bapst, Pushmeet Kohli, Max Jaderberg, Demis Hassabis, John M. Jumper

Authors and Affiliations

Core Contributor, Google DeepMind, London, UK

Josh Abramson, Jonas Adler, Jack Dunger, Richard Evans, Tim Green, Alexander Pritzel, Olaf Ronneberger, Lindsay Willmore, Andrew J. Ballard, Sebastian W. Bodenstein, David A. Evans, Michael O’Neill, David Reiman, Kathryn Tunyasuvunakool, Zachary Wu, Akvilė Žemgulytė, Victor Bapst, Pushmeet Kohli, Demis Hassabis & John M. Jumper

Core Contributor, Isomorphic Labs, London, UK

Joshua Bambrick, Chia-Chun Hung, Max Jaderberg & Demis Hassabis

Google DeepMind, London, UK

Eirini Arvaniti, Charles Beattie, Ottavia Bertolli, Alex Bridgland, Alexander I. Cowen-Rivers, Andrew Cowie, Michael Figurnov, Fabian B. Fuchs, Hannah Gladman, Rishub Jain, Yousuf A. Khan, Kuba Perlin, Anna Potapenko, Sukhdeep Singh, Ashok Thillaisundaram, Ellen D. Zhong, Michal Zielinski & Augustin Žídek

Isomorphic Labs, London, UK

Alexey Cherepanov, Miles Congreve, Caroline M. R. Low, Pascal Savy, Adrian Stecula, Catherine Tong & Sergei Yakneen

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Max Jaderberg , Demis Hassabis or John M. Jumper .

Supplementary information

Supplementary information.

This Supplementary Information file contains the following 9 sections: (1) Notation; (2) Data pipeline; (3) Model architecture; (4) Auxiliary heads; (5) Training and inference; (6) Evaluation; (7) Differences to AlphaFold2 and AlphaFold-Multimer; (8) Supplemental Results; and (9) Appendix: CCD Code and PDB ID tables.

Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Abramson, J., Adler, J., Dunger, J. et al. Accurate structure prediction of biomolecular interactions with AlphaFold 3. Nature (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07487-w

Download citation

Received : 19 December 2023

Accepted : 29 April 2024

Published : 08 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07487-w

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Major alphafold upgrade offers boost for drug discovery.

Ewen Callaway

Nature (2024)

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines . If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Quick links

Explore articles by subject
Guide to authors
Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Translational Research newsletter — top stories in biotechnology, drug discovery and pharma.

UK exits recession with fastest growth in nearly three years

Medium Text
UK GDP +0.6% in Q1 vs Reuters poll +0.4%
GDP in March +0.4% vs poll +0.1%
Sunak says economy has turned a corner
GDP per person grows for first time since early 2022

SURPRISE FOR BOE

Iconic red double-decker bus rides at the Regent Street

LIVING STANDARDS

Reporting by Suban Abdulla and David Milliken; Editing by Kate Holton and Toby Chopra

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. New Tab , opens new tab

The Bank of Canada building is pictured in Ottawa

World Chevron

Dabney Coleman speaks at a ceremony where the actor received a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame in Los Angeles

Actor Dabney Coleman, villainous boss in '9 to 5,' dies at 92

Dabney Coleman, a character actor who brought a glorious touch of smarm to the screen in playing comedic villains, mean-spirited bosses and outright jerks in films such as "9 to 5" and "Tootsie," has died at age 92.

Trucks carrying aid delivered into Gaza via a U.S.-built pier move, as seen from central Gaza Strip

A brick house with an inverted American flag flying over a green suburban lawn.

At Justice Alito’s House, a ‘Stop the Steal’ Symbol on Display

An upside-down flag, adopted by Trump supporters contesting the Biden victory, flew over the justice’s front lawn as the Supreme Court was considering an election case.

A photo obtained by The Times shows an inverted flag at the Alito residence on Jan. 17, 2021, three days before the Biden inauguration. Credit...

Supported by

Share full article

By Jodi Kantor

Jodi Kantor, who has been reporting on the Supreme Court, including the behind-the-scenes story of how the justices overturned the right to abortion, welcomes tips at nytimes.com/tips .

May 16, 2024

After the 2020 presidential election, as some Trump supporters falsely claimed that President Biden had stolen the office, many of them displayed a startling symbol outside their homes, on their cars and in online posts: an upside-down American flag.

One of the homes flying an inverted flag during that time was the residence of Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., in Alexandria, Va., according to photographs and interviews with neighbors.

The upside-down flag was aloft on Jan. 17, 2021, the images showed. President Donald J. Trump’s supporters, including some brandishing the same symbol, had rioted at the Capitol a little over a week before. Mr. Biden’s inauguration was three days away. Alarmed neighbors snapped photographs, some of which were recently obtained by The New York Times. Word of the flag filtered back to the court, people who worked there said in interviews.

While the flag was up, the court was still contending with whether to hear a 2020 election case, with Justice Alito on the losing end of that decision. In coming weeks, the justices will rule on two climactic cases involving the storming of the Capitol on Jan. 6, including whether Mr. Trump has immunity for his actions. Their decisions will shape how accountable he can be held for trying to overturn the last presidential election and his chances for re-election in the upcoming one.

“I had no involvement whatsoever in the flying of the flag,” Justice Alito said in an emailed statement to The Times. “It was briefly placed by Mrs. Alito in response to a neighbor’s use of objectionable and personally insulting language on yard signs.”

Judicial experts said in interviews that the flag was a clear violation of ethics rules, which seek to avoid even the appearance of bias, and could sow doubt about Justice Alito’s impartiality in cases related to the election and the Capitol riot.

The mere impression of political opinion can be a problem, the ethics experts said. “It might be his spouse or someone else living in his home, but he shouldn’t have it in his yard as his message to the world,” said Amanda Frost, a law professor at the University of Virginia.

This is “the equivalent of putting a ‘Stop the Steal’ sign in your yard, which is a problem if you’re deciding election-related cases,” she said.

Interviews show that the justice’s wife, Martha-Ann Alito, had been in a dispute with another family on the block over an anti-Trump sign on their lawn, but given the timing and the starkness of the symbol, neighbors interpreted the inverted flag as a political statement by the couple.

The longstanding ethics code for the lower courts, as well as the recent one adopted by the Supreme Court, stresses the need for judges to remain independent and avoid political statements or opinions on matters that could come before them.

“You always want to be proactive about the appearance of impartiality,” Jeremy Fogel, a former federal judge and the director of the Berkeley Judicial Institute, said in an interview. “The best practice would be to make sure that nothing like that is in front of your house.”

The court has also repeatedly warned its own employees against public displays of partisan views, according to guidelines circulated to the staff and reviewed by The Times. Displaying signs or bumper stickers is not permitted, according to the court’s internal rule book and a 2022 memo reiterating the ban on political activity.

Asked if these rules also apply to justices, the court declined to respond.

The exact duration that the flag flew outside the Alito residence is unclear. In an email from Jan. 18, 2021, reviewed by The Times, a neighbor wrote to a relative that the flag had been upside down for several days at that point.

In recent years, the quiet sanctuary of his street, with residents who are Republicans and Democrats, has tensed with conflict, neighbors said. Around the 2020 election , a family on the block displayed an anti-Trump sign with an expletive. It apparently offended Mrs. Alito and led to an escalating clash between her and the family, according to interviews.

Some residents have also bridled at the noise and intrusion brought by protesters, who started showing up outside the Alito residence in 2022 after the Supreme Court overturned the federal right to abortion. Other neighbors have joined the demonstrators, whose intent was “to bring the protest to their personal lives because the decisions affect our personal lives,” said Heather-Ann Irons, who came to the street to protest.

The half-dozen neighbors who saw the flag, or knew of it, requested anonymity because they said they did not want to add to the contentiousness on the block and feared reprisal. Last Saturday, May 11, protesters returned to the street, waving flags of their own (“Don’t Tread on My Uterus”) and using a megaphone to broadcast expletives at Justice Alito, who was in Ohio giving a commencement address . Mrs. Alito appeared in a window, complaining to the Supreme Court security detail outside.

Turning the American flag upside down is a symbol of emergency and distress, first used as a military S.O.S., historians said in interviews. In recent decades, it has increasingly been used as a political protest symbol — a controversial one, because the flag code and military tradition require the paramount symbol of the United States to be treated with respect.

Over the years, upside-down flags have been displayed by both the right and the left as an outcry over a range of issues, including the Vietnam War, gun violence , the Supreme Court’s overturning of the constitutional right to abortion and, in particular, election results. In 2012, Tea Party followers inverted flags at their homes to signal disgust at the re-election of President Barack Obama. Four years later, some liberals advised doing the same after Mr. Trump was elected.

During Mr. Trump’s quest to win, and then subvert, the 2020 election, the gesture took off as never before, becoming “really established as a symbol of the ‘Stop the Steal’ campaign,” according to Alex Newhouse, a researcher at the University of Colorado Boulder.

A flood of social media posts exhorted Trump supporters to flip over their flags or purchase new ones to display upside down.

“If Jan. 6 rolls around and Biden is confirmed by the Electoral College our nation is in distress!!” a poster wrote on Patriots.win, a forum for Trump supporters, garnering over a thousand “up” votes. “If you cannot go to the DC rally then you must do your duty and show your support for our president by flying the flag upside down!!!!”

Local newspapers from Lexington, Ky. , to Sun City, Ariz., to North Jersey wrote about the flags cropping up nearby. A few days before the inauguration, a Senate candidate in Minnesota flew an upside-down flag on his campaign vehicle .

Hanging an inverted flag outside a home was “an explicit signifier that you are part of this community that believes America has been taken and needs to be taken back,” Mr. Newhouse said.

This spring, the justices are already laboring under suspicion by many Americans that whatever decisions they make about the Jan. 6 cases will be partisan. Justice Clarence Thomas has declined to recuse himself despite the direct involvement of his wife, Virginia Thomas, in efforts to overturn the election.

Now, with decisions in the Jan. 6 cases expected in just a few weeks, a similar debate may unfurl about Justice Alito, the ethics experts said. “It really is a question of appearances and the potential impact on public confidence in the court,” Mr. Fogel said. “I think it would be better for the court if he weren’t involved in cases arising from the 2020 election. But I’m pretty certain that he will see that differently.”

If Justice Alito were on another court, Mr. Fogel said, the flag could also trigger some sort of review to determine if there was any misconduct. But because the Supreme Court serves as the arbiter of its own behavior, “you don’t really have anywhere to take it,” he said.

Aric Toler contributed reporting. Julie Tate contributed research.

Jodi Kantor is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporter and co-author of “She Said,” which recounts how she and Megan Twohey broke the story of sexual abuse allegations against Harvey Weinstein, helping to ignite the #MeToo movement. Instagram • More about Jodi Kantor

Opinion Between Trump and Biden, what should real Republicans do?

How Republicans should think about 2024 and beyond.

John Danforth, William Cohen and Alan Simpson are former Republican senators.

Millions of Republicans are struggling with the question of how to vote in November. Not content with the choices offered by either party, they find themselves at a loss as to how to proceed. Some are considering staying home, writing in a name of their own choosing or voting for a man they don’t really want to see in the White House.

We three former senators, all Republicans, will not presume to tell these people what to do on Nov. 5. What we do want to offer, however, is a framework for thinking about the decision and for helping to secure America’s future beyond 2024, no matter what happens on Election Day.

We believe that our nation’s well-being depends on having the positive, stabilizing influence of a healthy, two-party system, which we currently do not have; and that one of those parties must reflect the traditional Republicanism which we embraced in our decades of public service.

Recently it has become popular to assert that this traditional brand of Republicanism is dead, replaced by a new populist, radical version. We disagree. In our view, traditional Republicanism, though currently in eclipse, is no more extinct than the sun was over portions of the country on April 8. And all of us who believe in it must do what we can to ensure its expeditious return.

To facilitate this comeback, we and other former GOP officeholders and officials are not leaving the party, but instead forming a new organization within it — “Our Republican Legacy.” This new group will serve as a big tent for all of us who believe in what the party has been and must continue to be.

This initiative rests on the most solid of foundations — the five principles that historically have defined our party and been universally accepted across its membership. Sooner or later — and we hope sooner — these principles will reassert themselves because they are as relevant and critical to the well-being of our nation as ever. They are:

The Constitution — We are pledged to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. Our allegiance to the Constitution includes acceptance of the vote of the people, obedience to the decisions of our courts and support for the peaceful transfer of power. We think Jan. 6 , 2021, the date of the mob assault on the Capitol, was one of the darkest days in U.S. history, and the events leading to that assault were direct attacks on our constitutional order.

Union — Since the time of Abraham Lincoln, ours has been the party of the Union, of holding a fractured country together as one indivisible nation. That remains our purpose today. Americans come from many different backgrounds and interests, yet we are one people. We stand against the divisive tactics of both right and left that divide “us against them” by exploiting emotions of grievance and rage.

Fiscal responsibility — In recent years, Republicans have joined Democrats in abandoning that responsibility. The profligate explosion of our national debt is a legacy of weakness that future Americans must inherit. We renew our historical commitment to a sound economy.

Free enterprise — We support the private sector as the source of prosperity against big government interventions such as high protective tariffs and price controls.

Peace through strength — We believe that a peaceful world depends on a strong United States that is steadfast in opposing the aggression of Russia and other hostile regimes and is unwavering in our support for our allies.

It is certainly true that each of these principles extends back in history — in some cases, way back. The rule of law dates from the time of Moses, the free enterprise system to Adam Smith. But to recognize a principle as old is not to say that it is outdated — and none of these five are.

To sustain these principles, the three of us are launching “Our Republican Legacy.” It will not be a lobbying organization or a political action committee. It will not, as we said, tell people how to vote in 2024 or beyond. It will be a digital rallying place for all of those currently dispirited about the state of our party and see nowhere to go with their beliefs. It will be an information hub — a center of news and commentary and ideas about strategies and tactics.

In short, this group will be a catalyst for a movement to reassert traditional Republicanism against the populist version it has become under Donald Trump .

This is something new. Many Republicans have given up on trying to winch their party out the populist ditch. National resistance has been missing. Our Republican Legacy will provide that resistance and do so with credible leadership and sufficient funding and will continue as a force well beyond the November election.

For those who boast that traditional Republicanism is dead we issue this challenge: Tell us — tell the nation — precisely how and why you disagree with this group’s five defining principles. Tell us how the embrace of these principles would contradict the ideals of this great nation. And tell us how their abandonment would make our nation stronger.

About guest opinion submissions

The Washington Post accepts opinion articles on any topic. We welcome submissions on local, national and international issues. We publish work that varies in length and format, including multimedia. Submit a guest opinion or read our guide to writing an opinion article .

Bridging private equity’s value creation gap

For the past 40 years or so, private equity (PE) buyout managers largely invested capital in an environment of declining interest rates and escalating asset prices. During that period, they were able to rely on financial leverage, enhanced tax and debt structures, and increasing valuations on high-quality assets to generate outsize returns for investors and create value.

Times have changed , however. Since 2020, the cost of debt has increased and liquidity in debt markets is harder to access given current interest rates, asset valuations, and typical bank borrowing standards. Fund performance has suffered as a result: PE buyout entry multiples declined from 11.9 to 11.0 times EBITDA through the first nine months of 2023. 1 2024 Global Private Markets Review , McKinsey, March 2024.

Even as debt markets begin to bounce back, a new macroeconomic reality is setting in—one that requires more than just financial acumen to drive returns. Buyout managers now need to focus on operational value creation strategies for revenue growth, as well as margin expansion to offset compression of multiples and to deliver desired returns to investors.

Based on our years of research and experience working with a range of private-capital firms across the globe, we have identified two key principles to maximize operational value creation.

First, buyout managers should invest with operational value creation at the forefront . This means that in addition to strategic diligence, they should conduct operational diligence for new assets. Their focus should be on developing a rigorous, bespoke, and integrated approach to assessing top-line and operational efficiency. During the underwriting process, managers can also identify actions that could expand and improve EBITDA margins and growth rates during the holding period, identify the costs involved in this transformation, and create rough timelines to track the assets’ performance. And if they acquire the asset, the manager should: 1) clearly establish the value creation objectives before deal signing, 2) emphasize operational and top-line improvements after closing, and 3) pursue continual improvements in ways of working with portfolio companies. Meanwhile, for existing assets, the manager should ensure that the level of oversight and monitoring is closely aligned with the health of each asset.

Second, everyone should understand and have a hand in improving operations . Within the PE firm, the operating group and deal teams should work together to enable and hold portfolio companies accountable for the execution of the value creation plan. This begins with an explicit focus on “linking talent to value”—ensuring leaders with the right combination of skills and experience are in place and empowered to deliver the plan, improve internal processes, and build organizational capabilities.

In our experience, getting these two principles right can significantly improve PE fund performance. Our initial analysis of more than 100 PE funds with vintages after 2020 indicates that general partners that focus on creating value through asset operations achieve a higher internal rate of return—up to two to three percentage points higher, on average—compared with peers.

The case for operational efficiency

The ongoing macroeconomic uncertainty has made it difficult for buyout managers to achieve historical levels of returns in the PE buyout industry using old ways of value creation. 2 Overall, roughly two-thirds of the total return for buyout deals that were entered in 2010 or later, and exited 2021 or before, can be attributed to market multiple expansion and leverage. See 2024 Global Private Markets Review . And it’s not going to get any easier anytime soon, for two reasons.

Higher-for-longer rates will trigger financing issues

The US Federal Reserve projects that the federal funds rate will remain around 4.5 percent through 2024, then potentially drop to about 3.0 percent by the end of 2026. 3 “Summary of economic projections,” Federal Reserve Board, December 13, 2023. Yet, even if rates decline by 200 basis points over the next two years, they will still be higher than they were over the past four years when PE buyout deals were underwritten.

This could create issues with recapitalization or floating interest rate resets for a portfolio company’s standing debt. Consider that the average borrower takes a leveraged loan at an interest coverage ratio of about three times EBIDTA (or 3x). 4 The interest coverage ratio is an indicator of a borrower’s ability to service debt, or potential default risk. With rising interest expenses and additional profitability headwinds, these coverage ratios could quickly fall below 2x and get close to or trip covenant triggers around 1x. In 2023, for example, the average leveraged loan in the healthcare and software industries was already at less than a 2x interest coverage ratio. 5 James Gelfer and Stephanie Rader, “What’s the worst that could happen? Default and recovery rates in private credit,” Goldman Sachs, April 20, 2023. To avoid a covenant breach, or (if needed) increasing recapitalization capital available without equity paydown, managers will need to rely on operational efficiency to increase EBITDA.

Valuations are mismatched

If interest rates remain high, the most recent vintage of PE assets is likely to face valuation mismatches at exit, or extended hold periods until value can be realized. Moreover, valuation of PE assets has remained high relative to their public-market equivalents, partly a result of the natural lag in how these assets are marked to market. As the CEO of Harvard University’s endowment explained in Harvard’s 2023 annual report, it will likely take more time for private valuations to fully reflect market conditions due to the continued slowdown in exits and financing rounds. 6 Message from the CEO of Harvard Management Company, September 2023.

Adapting PE’s value creation approach

Operational efficiency isn’t a new concept in the PE world. We’ve previously written about the strategic shift among firms, increasingly notable since 2018, moving from the historical “buy smart and hold” approach to one of “acquire, align on strategy, and improve operating performance.”

However, the role of operations in creating more value is no longer just a source of competitive advantage but a competitive necessity for managers. Let’s take a closer look at the two principles that can create operational efficiency.

Invest with operational value creation at the forefront

PE fund managers can improve the profitability and exit valuations of assets by having operations-related conversations up front.

Assessing new assets. Prior to acquiring an asset, PE managers typically conduct financial and strategic diligence to refine their understanding of a given market and the asset’s position in that market. They should also undertake operational diligence—if they are not already doing so—to develop a holistic view of the asset to inform their value creation agenda.

Operational diligence involves the detailed assessment of an asset’s operations, including identification of opportunities to improve margins or accelerate organic growth. A well-executed operational-diligence process can reveal or confirm which types of initiatives could generate top-line and efficiency-driven value, the estimated cash flow improvements these initiatives could generate, the approximate timing of any cash flow improvements, and the potential costs of such initiatives.

The results of an operational-diligence process can be advantageous in other ways, too. Managers can use the findings to create a compelling value creation plan, or a detailed memo summarizing the near-term improvement opportunities available in the current profit-and-loss statement, as well as potential opportunities for expansion into adjacencies or new markets. After this step is done, they should determine, in collaboration with their operating-group colleagues, whether they have the appropriate leaders in place to successfully implement the value creation plan.

These results can also help managers resolve any potential issues up front, prior to deal signing, which in turn could increase the likelihood of receiving investment committee approval for the acquisition. Managers also can share the diligence findings with co-investors and financiers to help boost their confidence in the investment and the associated value creation thesis.

It is crucial that managers have in-depth familiarity with company operations, since operational diligence is not just an analytical-sizing exercise. If they perform operational diligence well, they can ensure that the full value creation strategy and performance improvement opportunities are embedded in the annual operating plan and the longer-term three- to five-year plan of the portfolio company’s management team.

Assessing existing assets. When it comes to existing assets, a fundamental question for PE managers is how to continue to improve performance throughout the deal life cycle. Particularly in the current macroeconomic and geopolitical environment, where uncertainty reigns, managers should focus more—and more often—on directly monitoring assets and intervening when required. They can complement this monitoring with routine touchpoints with the CEO, CFO, and chief transformation officer (CTO) of individual assets to get updates on critical initiatives driving the value creation plan, along with ensuring their operating group has full access to each portfolio company’s financials. Few PE managers currently provide this level of transparency into their assets’ performance.

To effectively monitor existing assets, managers can use key performance indicators (KPIs) directly linked to the fund’s investment thesis. For instance, if the fund’s investment thesis is centered on the availability of inventory, they may rigorously track forecasts of supply and demand and order volumes. This way, they can identify and address issues with inventory early on. Some managers pull information directly from the enterprise resource planning systems in their portfolio companies to get full visibility into operations. Others have set up specific “transformation management offices” to support performance improvements in key assets and improve transparency on key initiatives.

We’ve seen managers adopt various approaches with assets that are on track to meet return hurdles. They have frequent discussions with the portfolio company’s management team, perform quarterly credit checks on key suppliers and customers to ensure stability of their extended operations, and do a detailed review of the portfolio company’s operations and financial performance two to three years into the hold period. Managers can therefore confirm whether the management team is delivering on their value creation plans and also identify any new opportunities associated with the well-performing assets.

If existing assets are underperforming or distressed, managers’ prompt interventions to improve operations in the near term, and improve revenue over the medium term, can determine whether they should continue to own the asset or reduce their equity position through a bankruptcy proceeding. One manager implemented a cash management program to monitor and improve the cash flow for an underperforming retail asset of a portfolio company. The approach helped the portfolio company overcome a peak cash flow crisis period, avoid tripping liquidity covenants in an asset-backed loan, and get the time needed for the asset’s long-term performance to improve.

Reassess internal operations and governance

In addition to operational improvements, managers should also assess their own operations and consider shifting to an operating model that encourages increased engagement between their team and the portfolio companies. They should cultivate a stable of trusted, experienced executives within the operating group. They should empower these executives to be equal collaborators with the deal team in determining the value available in the asset to be underwritten, developing an appropriate value creation strategy, and overseeing performance of the portfolio company’s management.

Shift to a ‘just right’ operating model for operating partners. The operating model through which buyout managers engage with portfolio companies should be “just right”—that is, aligned with the fund’s overall strategy, how the fund is structured, and who sets the strategic vision for each individual portfolio company.

There are two types of engagement operating models—consultative and directive. When choosing an operating model, firms should align their hiring and internal capabilities to support their operating norms, how they add value to their portfolio companies, and the desired relationship with the management team (exhibit).

Take the example of a traditional buyout manager that acquires good companies with good management teams. In such a case, the portfolio company’s management team is likely to already have a strategic vision for the asset. These managers may therefore choose a more consultative engagement approach (for instance, providing advice and support to the portfolio company for any board-related issues or other challenges).

For value- or operations-focused funds, the manager may have higher ownership in the strategic vision for the asset, so their initial goal should be to develop a management team that can deliver on a specific investment thesis. In this case, the support required by the portfolio company could be less specialized (for example, the manager helps in hiring the right talent for key functional areas), and more integrative, to ensure a successful end-to-end transformation for the asset. As such, a more directive or oversight-focused engagement operating model may be preferred.

Successful execution of these engagement models requires the operating group to have the right talent mix and experience levels. If the manager implements a “generalist” coverage model, for example, where the focus is on monitoring and overseeing portfolio companies, the operating group will need people with the ability (and experience) to support the management in end-to-end transformations. However, a different type of skill set is required if the manager chooses a “specialist” coverage model, where the focus is on providing functional guidance and expertise (leaving transformations to the portfolio company’s management teams). Larger and more mature operating groups frequently use a mix of both talent pools.

Empower the operating group. In the past, many buyout managers did not have operating teams, so they relied on the management teams in the portfolio companies to fully identify and implement the value creation plan while running the asset’s day-to-day operations. Over time, many top PE funds began to establish internal operating groups to provide strategic direction, coaching, and support to their portfolio companies. The operating groups, however, tended to take a back seat to deal teams, largely because legacy mindsets and governance structures placed responsibility for the performance of an asset on the deal team. In our view, while the deal team needs to remain responsible and accountable for the deal, certain tasks can be delegated to the operating group.

Some managers give their operating group members seats on portfolio company boards, hiring authority for key executives, and even decision-making rights on certain value creation strategies within the portfolio. For optimal performance, these operating groups should have leaders with prior C-suite responsibility or commensurate accountability within the PE fund and experience executing cross-functional mandates and company transformations. Certain funds with a core commitment to portfolio value creation include the leader of the operating group on the investment committee. Less-experienced members of the operating group can have consultative arrangements or peer-to-peer relationships with key portfolio company leaders.

Since the main KPIs for operating teams are financial, it is critical that their leaders understand a buyout asset’s business model, financing, and general market dynamics. The operating group should also be involved in the deal during the diligence phase, and participate in the development of the value creation thesis as well as the underwriting process. Upon deal close, the operating team should be as empowered as the deal team to serve as stewards of the asset and resolve issues concerning company operations.

Some funds also are hiring CTOs for their portfolio companies to steer them through large transformations. Similar to the CTO in any organization , they help the organization align on a common vision, translate strategy into concrete initiatives for better performance, and create a system of continuous improvement and growth for the employees. However, when deployed by the PE fund, the CTO also often serves as a bridge between the PE fund and the portfolio company and can serve as a plug-and-play executive to fill short-term gaps in the portfolio company management team. In many instances, the CTO is given signatory, and occasionally broader, functional responsibilities. In addition, their personal incentives can be aligned with the fund’s desired outcomes. For example, funds may tie an element of the CTO’s overall compensation to EBITDA improvement or the success of the transformation.

Bring best-of-breed capabilities to portfolio companies. Buyout managers can bring a range of compelling capabilities to their portfolio companies, especially to smaller and midmarket companies and their internal operating teams. Our conversations with industry stakeholders revealed that buyout managers’ skills can be particularly useful in the following three areas:

Procurement. Portfolio companies can draw on a buyout manager’s long-established procurement processes, team, and negotiating support. For instance, managers often have prenegotiated rates with suppliers or group purchasing arrangements that portfolio companies can leverage to minimize their own procurement costs and reduce third-party spending.
Executive talent. They can also capitalize on the diverse and robust network of top talent that buyout managers have likely cultivated over time, including homegrown leaders and ones found through executive search firms (both within and outside the PE industry).
Partners. Similarly, they can work with the buyout manager’s roster of external experts, business partners, suppliers, and advisers to find the best solutions to their emerging business challenges (for instance, gaining access to offshore resources during a carve-out transaction).

Ongoing macroeconomic uncertainty is creating unprecedented times in the PE buyout industry. Managers should use this as an opportunity to redouble their efforts on creating operational improvements in their existing portfolio, as well as new assets. It won’t be easy to adapt and evolve value creation processes and practices, but managers that succeed have an opportunity to close the gap between the current state of value creation and historical returns and outperform their peers.

Jose Luis Blanco is a senior partner in McKinsey’s New York office, where Matthew Maloney is a partner; William Bundy is a partner in the Washington, DC, office; and Jason Phillips is a senior partner in the London office.

The authors wish to thank Louis Dufau and Bill Leigh for their contributions to this article.

This article was edited by Arshiya Khullar, an editor in McKinsey’s Gurugram office.

Explore a career with us

McKinsey Global Private Markets Review 2024: Private markets in a slower era

CEO alpha: A new approach to generating private equity outperformance

Private equity operating groups and the pursuit of ‘portfolio alpha’

Why Cannes 2024 is shaping up to be the most dramatic yet

Organisers face controversies on multiple fronts, from a potential stand-off with Iran to rumours of a 'secret list' of industry predators

Newsletter sign up Newsletter

An employee rolls out the red carpet outside the Palais des Festivals in Cannes, while photographers take pictures

Throughout its 78-year history, the Cannes Film Festival has been "criss-crossed by the political struggles of its time", said Le Monde.

Yet 2024 promises to be a particularly dramatic iteration of the annual festival of cinema, with "every misstep, or supposed misstep, tarnishing the duty of exemplarity that its status imposes", the paper added.

With the line-up including Francis Ford Coppola's "Megalopolis" and the much-anticipated "Mad Max" sequel "Furiosa", the 77th Cannes Film Festival has been billed the "most mouth-watering in years" for cinephiles, said France 24 . But off-screen, "darker plotlines abound, reflecting a backdrop of turmoil both in France and abroad".

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/flexiimages/jacafc5zvs1692883516.jpg

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

France's #MeToo moment

The sword of Damocles hovering over the run-up to Cannes 2024 has been the rumoured circulation of a "secret list" of alleged abusers in the film industry, said The Guardian . The list has been "described as 'explosive'", and Cannes organisers have "set up a crisis management team" in case the names are published during the festival.

The aftershocks of the #MeToo movement are still reverberating through the industry and particularly in France , where the fallout "has been slower and more nuanced than in America", said The Guardian.

Festival organisers have attempted to tread the fine line of directing focus on the artistic programme without fanning the flames by appearing to silence the conversation. French actor Judith Godreche, who earlier this year accused two directors of raping her as a teenager, will be premiering her #MeToo-inspired short film "Moi Aussi" at Cannes.

The jury is chaired by "Barbie" director Greta Gerwig, and includes Eva Green, "one of the more prominent actors to have accused Harvey Weinstein of making inappropriate advances" said The Guardian. Also, setting a "more progressive tone", Meryl Streep, British director Andrea Arnold and Universal Studios chair Donna Langley are to receive major achievement awards this year.

Lights, camera, strike

"Labour unrest is also on the horizon," said Variety . A collective representing hundreds of festival employees is calling for strike action to protest upcoming changes to French labour laws "that will see their unemployment indemnities slashed by more than half".

At a pre-opening cocktail party for festival staff, attendees clapped and cheered the group's leader, while members of the collective distributed stickers and badges drawing attention to the precarious situation of freelance festival workers.

Cannes vs. Iran

Politics are never far from the forefront at Cannes, and this year is no different. As well as a film line-up that includes "The Apprentice", in which Sebastian Stan plays a young Donald Trump, current events are expected to hang over proceedings off-screen. Although demonstrations along the Croisette have been banned during the festival, the conflict in Gaza is "almost certain to spark some form of protest", said France24.

But perhaps less expected was the dramatic escape of Iranian film director Mohammad Rasoulof, who fled his home country for Europe last week after an appeals court upheld a verdict sentencing him to eight years in prison and flogging. The acclaimed filmmaker was found guilty of making films and public statements amounting to "collusion with the intention of committing a crime against the country’s security", according to his lawyer's statement on social media.

Other offences, including filming without correct permits and allowing female actors to be filmed without a hijab, related to the making of his film "The Seed of the Sacred Fig", which premieres at Cannes next week.

Rasoulof's departure from Iran has "spurred speculation" that the director will attend, said France24, "potentially setting the stage for an unprecedented showdown with the Islamic Republic", which has exerted pressure on festival organisers to cancel the screening.

Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox

A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com

Rebecca Messina is the deputy editor of The Week's UK digital team. She first joined The Week in 2015 as an editorial assistant, later becoming a staff writer and then deputy news editor, and was also a founding panellist on "The Week Unwrapped" podcast. In 2019, she became digital editor on lifestyle magazines in Bristol, in which role she oversaw the launch of interiors website YourHomeStyle.uk, before returning to The Week in 2024.

Yazmin Oukhellou arriving at the ITV Gala held at the London Palladium in 2017

Speed Read Lauren Goodger and Rebecca Gormley among seven stars charged by the Financial Conduct Authority

By Arion McNicoll, The Week UK Published 17 May 24

Infographic style illustration of a world map linking France, Azerbaijan and New Caledonia, with Emmanuel Macron, Louis Mapou and Ilham Aliyev

Today's Big Question Catalyst for the disorder is new legislation that would expand the eligible electorate, but Baku is accused of fomenting turmoil

By Rebecca Messina, The Week UK Published 17 May 24

Pope Francis meets attendees at the Vatican summit on the climate crisis

Podcast Plus, the pros and cons of marathon mortgages, and the economic impact of Taylor Swift

By The Week Staff Published 17 May 24

Director Quentin Tarantino (centre) and the cast of Pulp Fiction at Cannes in 1994: (from left to right) John Travolta, Uma Thurman, Tarantino, Bruce Willis and Maria de Medeiros

In Depth Now in its 77th edition, the festival has been the scene of famous dramas, both on and off screen

By Adrienne Wyper, The Week UK Published 15 May 24

Photo collage of a hand showing the heart symbol, split in half b the tenets of the B$ movement rendered in Hangul. It is framed in a playing card, with the suit showing as a broken heart, with the letter

Under The Radar Believing Korean men 'beyond redemption' some women are swearing off them completely

By Chas Newkey-Burden, The Week UK Published 15 May 24

In the spotlight Beef between Californian rapper and Canadian hip-hop star goes 'nuclear' with diss tracks full of serious allegations

By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published 8 May 24

Ryan Gosling clinging to the underside of a truck in Universal Pictures' 'The Fall Guy' (2024)

The Week Recommends A low-fi A24 horror, a May-December romance inspired by Harry Styles, and a love letter to stuntmen

By Anya Jaremko-Greenwold, The Week US Published 7 May 24

Anika Noni Rose, Beyoncé Knowles and Jennifer Hudson in

The Week Recommends The singing and dancing, bigger than life itself

By Scott Hocker, The Week US Published 1 May 24

The Week Recommends These films are as enjoyable as they are terrible

By Anya Jaremko-Greenwold, The Week US Published 29 April 24

An image of a Western Forces military base in 'Civil War'

Talking Point Some say the film's events aren't that far from reality, but others are less convinced

By Justin Klawans, The Week US Published 23 April 24

Julio Torres and Tilda Swinton embracing at the world premiere of Problemista

The Explainer His latest endeavor, "Problemista," continues his peerless artistic run

By Scott Hocker, The Week US Published 12 April 24

Contact Future's experts
Terms and Conditions
Privacy Policy
Cookie Policy
Advertise With Us

The Week is part of Future plc, an international media group and leading digital publisher. Visit our corporate site . © Future US, Inc. Full 7th Floor, 130 West 42nd Street, New York, NY 10036.

IMAGES

Dissertation vs. Thesis: What’s the Difference?
Difference Between Thesis and Research Article
6 Major difference between Thesis and Research Paper
What is the Difference Between Thesis and Research Paper
Thesis Submission
Thesis vs Dissertation: Main Differences

VIDEO

Unbreakable 2010
Thesis Seminar Recap #5
Effective ways of writing Thesis / Research Article
Thesis vs Victor Jay
Thesis Preparation Video #4
Thesis VS Loslogic细超巅峰对决1VS1 FINAL BATTLE 炸舞阵线Vol4.f4v

COMMENTS

9 differences between a thesis and a journal article
This infographic lists nine ways in which a thesis is different from a journal article. The idea is to help you understand how the two are distinct types of academic writing, meant for different audiences and written for different purposes. Feel free to download a PDF version of this infographic and print it out as handy reference.
Thesis vs Journal Article: A Comprehensive Comparison
The structure of a thesis allows for an extensive exploration of the research problem, thorough analysis of the findings, and comprehensive discussion of their implications. In contrast, a journal article adheres to a more concise and standardized structure. It typically includes an abstract, introduction, methodology, results, discussion, and ...
11 Differences Between a Thesis and an Article
An article should meet journal standards. It depends on a journal you publish. Reviewers. It usually reviewed by selected committee members from different countries. It reviewed by a panel of reviewers selected from the journal. Organization. Thesis consist of various chapters. An article consists of various sections.
What Is a Thesis?
Revised on April 16, 2024. A thesis is a type of research paper based on your original research. It is usually submitted as the final step of a master's program or a capstone to a bachelor's degree. Writing a thesis can be a daunting experience. Other than a dissertation, it is one of the longest pieces of writing students typically complete.
Adapting a Dissertation or Thesis Into a Journal Article
When deciding whether to publish the work in your dissertation or thesis, first consider whether the findings tell a compelling story or answer important questions. Whereas dissertations and theses may present existing knowledge in conjunction with new work, published research should make a novel contribution to the literature.
How to Write a Journal Article from a Thesis
2. Shorten the length of your thesis. Treat your thesis as a separate work. Paraphrase but do not distort meaning. Select and repurpose parts of your thesis. 3. Reformat the introduction as an abstract. Shorten the introduction to 100-150 words, but maintain key topics to hold the reader's attention.
Publishing a Master's Thesis: A Guide for Novice Authors
This "call to publish" student work is based on evidence that a large proportion of students engage in a scholarly activity with publication potential. A recent survey of 531 genetic counselors suggests that 75% of respondents fulfilled their scholarly activity requirement via a master's thesis (Clark et al. 2006 ).
PDF Thesis FAQ: Standard vs Manuscript-based Theses 1)
The purpose of a thesis and of published manuscripts is very different. In the case of a PhD, demonstration of an original contribution is a requirement for obtaining the degree. The goal of a multi-authored manuscript is to bring the work of many authors into a single, cohesive story.
The Ultimate Guide to Getting Your Thesis Published in a Journal
Be patient with the process. Additional areas of improvement include>. · having to reorganize your thesis to meet the section requirements of the journal you submit to ( abstract, intro, methods, results, and discussion). · Possibly changing your reference system to match the journal requirements or reducing the number of references.
PDF How to Turn Your Thesis into an Article
THesis JournAl ArTicle The main differences between a thesis and an article: Tip u: identify the appropriate target journal • Read the aims and scope of the journal and make sure that your paper is in the journal's scope. If your research falls outside of the aims and scope, look for a more suitable home for your paper.*
How to Write a Thesis Statement
Step 2: Write your initial answer. After some initial research, you can formulate a tentative answer to this question. At this stage it can be simple, and it should guide the research process and writing process. The internet has had more of a positive than a negative effect on education.
Thesis Statements
A thesis statement: tells the reader how you will interpret the significance of the subject matter under discussion. is a road map for the paper; in other words, it tells the reader what to expect from the rest of the paper. directly answers the question asked of you. A thesis is an interpretation of a question or subject, not the subject itself.
Transforming a Dissertation Chapter into a Published Article
A first step, as noted above, is to identify the presuppositions or ideas from other chapters you and your committee members bring to this one. A second is to identify the elements of the chapter that tie it to the rest of the dissertation. These elements may be extended passages or allusions to what comes before or after, or, indeed, things ...
Is a thesis a publication?
16. In order, yes, and no. A thesis is a public document and thus helps establish "prior art" in terms of research. Of course sometimes researchers come up with the same ideas simultaneously, or certain work is just not known as widely as it should be, so sometimes work gets innocently repeated (as compared to plagiarised, which can also happen ...
From Thesis to Journal Articles: Expert Tips on Publishing in ...
3. Pay attention to your writing style. Check the recommendations made by the journal including the suggested structure and reference style. 4. Journal articles are typically much shorter in length (4000 to 7000 words) and more concise than a thesis. Therefore, you have to trim the length and make them crisper.
Identifying Thesis Statements, Claims, and Evidence
Thesis Statements, Claims, and Evidence Introduction. The three important parts of an argumentative essay are: A thesis statement is a sentence, usually in the first paragraph of an article, that expresses the article's main point. It is not a fact; it's a statement that you could disagree with.
Dissertation vs Thesis: Understanding the Key Differences
Lastly, one of the main differences between a dissertation and a thesis is the potential for publication. As the dissertation is more extensive and requires original research contributing to the academic field, theses are less likely to be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Although a master's thesis is more narrowly focused, it can still ...
Manuscript-Based (Article-Based) Theses
FAQ on manuscript-based theses As an alternative to the traditional format, a thesis may be presented as a collection of scholarly papers of which the student is the first author or co-first author. A manuscript-based doctoral thesis must include the text of a minimum of two manuscripts published, submitted or to be submitted for publication. A manuscript-based Master's thesis must include ...
publications
paper = article: In the academic meaning of the words, papers and articles refer to the same thing: a published piece of writing.The term is used for journal papers or journal articles, which means they have been published by a journal, but also for less traditional publications, including self-publication ("Dr.Who just published a great paper on the intricacies of time travel on his webpage ...
Library Guides: Is it an Article, a Book, or a Chapter in a Book
A thesis is written to satisfy a requirement for a Master's degree. There is almost always something in the database record or the citation that says "thesis." Frequently, the degree will be mentioned as well. ... If published as journal articles, these citations are similar to normal journal citations. EXAMPLE: Conference Proceedings.
Traditional vs. Journal Style Thesis Templates
The main difference is how you organize your written content. Traditional Style Theses are organized by chapters or sections. Journal Style Theses are organized by manuscripts tied into an overarching Introduction and Conclusion. Reference the tables below for an in-depth description of the differences between the two Thesis Template Styles.
Incorporating your published work in your thesis
When submitting your thesis, you will be required to confirm that: (a) the work in the incorporated publications is your own, and. (b) that any co-authors give permission for the article to be included in the thesis. To do this, you must complete the Declaration for publication incorporated in a thesis form.
Accurate structure prediction of biomolecular interactions with
The introduction of AlphaFold 21 has spurred a revolution in modelling the structure of proteins and their interactions, enabling a huge range of applications in protein modelling and design2-6 ...
UK exits recession with fastest growth in nearly three years
Britain's economy grew by the most in nearly three years in the first quarter of 2024, ending the shallow recession it entered in the second half of last year and delivering a boost to Prime ...
Sean 'Diddy' Combs seen physically assaulting Cassie Ventura in 2016
A 2016 surveillance video obtained exclusively by CNN shows Sean "Diddy" Combs grab, shove, drag and kick his then-girlfriend Cassie Ventura during an altercation that matches allegations in a ...
Supreme Court Justice Alito's House Displayed a 'Stop the Steal' Flag
An upside-down flag, adopted by Trump supporters contesting the Biden victory, flew over the justice's front lawn as the Supreme Court was considering an election case.
Opinion
We publish work that varies in length and format, including multimedia. Submit a guest opinion or read our guide to writing an opinion article. Share. Comments. Popular opinions articles.
Bridging private equity's value creation gap
The operating group should also be involved in the deal during the diligence phase, and participate in the development of the value creation thesis as well as the underwriting process. Upon deal close, the operating team should be as empowered as the deal team to serve as stewards of the asset and resolve issues concerning company operations.
Why Cannes 2024 is shaping up to be the most dramatic yet
Organisers face controversies on multiple fronts, from a potential stand-off with Iran to rumours of a 'secret list' of industry predators

Thesis vs Journal Article: A Comprehensive Comparison

Audience and Publication

Length and Depth

Citation and Referencing

Call for Book Chapter on Breast Cancer

Publish Proceedings

In-text Citation: Referencing Guide

APA Referencing Style: A Quick Guide

IEEE Referencing Style: A Quick Guide

Privacy Overview

11 Differences Between a Thesis and an Article

Differences Between a Thesis and an Article

What is the Difference Between Thesis and Dissertation?

PhD in India 2024 – Cost, Duration, and Eligibility for Admission

LEAVE A REPLY Cancel reply

Google News

How to Write a Journal Article from a Thesis

Thesis Characteristics:

Journal Article Characteristics:

Converting your thesis to a journal article may be complex, but it’s not impossible.

1. Identify the best journal for your work

2. Shorten the length of your thesis

3. Reformat the introduction as an abstract

4. Modify the introduction

5. Tighten the methods section

6. Report main findings in the results

7. Discussion must be clear and concise

8. Limit the number of references

How to Choose a Journal to Submit an Article

How to Submit a Paper for Publication in a Journal

Publishing Biomedical Research: What Rules Should You Follow?

Writing an Effective Cover Letter for Manuscript Resubmission

Journal Acceptance Rates: Everything You Need to Know

Research Data Storage and Retention

How to Find and Select Reviewers for Journal Articles

How to Request the Addition of an Extra Author Before Publication

Paper Rejection: Common Reasons

Publishing a Master’s Thesis: A Guide for Novice Authors

Patricia McCarthy Veach

Sarah Charles

Kristen Vogel

Terri Blase

Christina G. S. Palmer

Introduction

The Publication Process

Table 1

Choosing a Journal

Peer Review

Acceptance!

Table 2

Ethics of Publishing

Authorship Determination

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

Subject Confidentiality

Accuracy of Information

Publishing in Multiple Sources

Examples of Success

Table 3

Case 1: Consider Writing Your Thesis and Journal Article Concurrently

Case 2: You Need Not Publish Every Thesis Finding—Pick The Most Interesting and Relevant

Case 3: Expectations and Mentorship are Crucial

Acknowledgments

Open Access

The Ultimate Guide to Getting Your Thesis Published in a Journal

Pre-Publication Preparations

Revising Your Thesis

Areas for Improvement

Identifying Potential Publishers

Find this useful?

Submitting Your Thesis

Preparing Your Submission

Navigating the Peer Review Process

After Publication

What are the benefits of getting your thesis published?

How long does it typically take to get a thesis published?

How can I ensure the quality of my thesis when attempting to get it published?

Share this article:

Got content that needs a quick turnaround? Let us polish your work. Explore our editorial business services.

How to Use Infographics to Boost Your Presentation

Why Interactive PDFs Are Better for Engagement