- William M. K. Trochim, “Write-Up”, Research Methods Knowledge Base (October 20, 2006 Edition) <http://www.socialresearchmethods.net
- The full section on “Write-Up” (including “Key Elements”, “Formatting”, and the “Sample Paper”) provides a good overview of how to write a paper in American Psychological Association (APA) format.
- Oded Goldreich, “How to Write a Paper”, January 18, 2013
- This article is geared toward those writing CS theory papers, so it provides an interesting contrast with Trochim’s advice.
- Joseph P. Simmons, Leif D. Nelson, and Uri Simonsohn, “False-Positive Psychology: Undisclosed Flexibility in Data Collection and Analysis Allows Presenting Anything As Significant”, Psychological Science 22(11) 1359 –1366, 2011
- The “Requirements for Authors” and “Guidelines for Reviewers” in this paper have already had considerable influence on the field of psychology and seem like the wave of the future in many respects.
- Gary Marcus, “Six Ways to Clean Up Science”, The New Yorker, December 24, 2012
- Marcus mentions “meta-analysis” as one powerful way that research can be advanced.
- OPTIONAL: Richard Feynman, “Cargo Cult Science”, Commencement Address, Caltech, 1974
- Reasons why researchers might present or write in a way that too few in their audience can understand: (1) not being able to imagine what is difficult for others to understand about a subject one is very familiar with; (2) misjudging the audience as being more familiar with the subject than they are; (3) applying the bad model of others’ practices in the field and assuming that is just how research should be presented; (4) wanting to look like (a) I am smart, (b) I have done a lot of work, and (c) the work was difficult.
- Much of the current debate around how research should be presented in psychology revolves around the deficiencies of p-values, which measure only P(E|H) when the real quantity of interest is P(H|E).