research articles note

13.5 Research Process: Making Notes, Synthesizing Information, and Keeping a Research Log

Learning outcomes.

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

• Employ the methods and technologies commonly used for research and communication within various fields.
• Practice and apply strategies such as interpretation, synthesis, response, and critique to compose texts that integrate the writer’s ideas with those from appropriate sources.
• Analyze and make informed decisions about intellectual property based on the concepts that motivate them.
• Apply citation conventions systematically.

As you conduct research, you will work with a range of “texts” in various forms, including sources and documents from online databases as well as images, audio, and video files from the Internet. You may also work with archival materials and with transcribed and analyzed primary data. Additionally, you will be taking notes and recording quotations from secondary sources as you find materials that shape your understanding of your topic and, at the same time, provide you with facts and perspectives. You also may download articles as PDFs that you then annotate. Like many other students, you may find it challenging to keep so much material organized, accessible, and easy to work with while you write a major research paper. As it does for many of those students, a research log for your ideas and sources will help you keep track of the scope, purpose, and possibilities of any research project.

A research log is essentially a journal in which you collect information, ask questions, and monitor the results. Even if you are completing the annotated bibliography for Writing Process: Informing and Analyzing , keeping a research log is an effective organizational tool. Like Lily Tran’s research log entry, most entries have three parts: a part for notes on secondary sources, a part for connections to the thesis or main points, and a part for your own notes or questions. Record source notes by date, and allow room to add cross-references to other entries.

Summary of Assignment: Research Log

Your assignment is to create a research log similar to the student model. You will use it for the argumentative research project assigned in Writing Process: Integrating Research to record all secondary source information: your notes, complete publication data, relation to thesis, and other information as indicated in the right-hand column of the sample entry.

Another Lens. A somewhat different approach to maintaining a research log is to customize it to your needs or preferences. You can apply shading or color coding to headers, rows, and/or columns in the three-column format (for colors and shading). Or you can add columns to accommodate more information, analysis, synthesis, or commentary, formatting them as you wish. Consider adding a column for questions only or one for connections to other sources. Finally, consider a different visual format , such as one without columns. Another possibility is to record some of your comments and questions so that you have an aural rather than a written record of these.

Writing Center

At this point, or at any other point during the research and writing process, you may find that your school’s writing center can provide extensive assistance. If you are unfamiliar with the writing center, now is a good time to pay your first visit. Writing centers provide free peer tutoring for all types and phases of writing. Discussing your research with a trained writing center tutor can help you clarify, analyze, and connect ideas as well as provide feedback on works in progress.

Quick Launch: Beginning Questions

You may begin your research log with some open pages in which you freewrite, exploring answers to the following questions. Although you generally would do this at the beginning, it is a process to which you likely will return as you find more information about your topic and as your focus changes, as it may during the course of your research.

• What information have I found so far?
• What do I still need to find?
• Where am I most likely to find it?

These are beginning questions. Like Lily Tran, however, you will come across general questions or issues that a quick note or freewrite may help you resolve. The key to this section is to revisit it regularly. Written answers to these and other self-generated questions in your log clarify your tasks as you go along, helping you articulate ideas and examine supporting evidence critically. As you move further into the process, consider answering the following questions in your freewrite:

• What evidence looks as though it best supports my thesis?
• What evidence challenges my working thesis?
• How is my thesis changing from where it started?

Creating the Research Log

As you gather source material for your argumentative research paper, keep in mind that the research is intended to support original thinking. That is, you are not writing an informational report in which you simply supply facts to readers. Instead, you are writing to support a thesis that shows original thinking, and you are collecting and incorporating research into your paper to support that thinking. Therefore, a research log, whether digital or handwritten, is a great way to keep track of your thinking as well as your notes and bibliographic information.

In the model below, Lily Tran records the correct MLA bibliographic citation for the source. Then, she records a note and includes the in-text citation here to avoid having to retrieve this information later. Perhaps most important, Tran records why she noted this information—how it supports her thesis: The human race must turn to sustainable food systems that provide healthy diets with minimal environmental impact, starting now . Finally, she makes a note to herself about an additional visual to include in the final paper to reinforce the point regarding the current pressure on food systems. And she connects the information to other information she finds, thus cross-referencing and establishing a possible synthesis. Use a format similar to that in Table 13.4 to begin your own research log.

Types of Research Notes

Taking good notes will make the research process easier by enabling you to locate and remember sources and use them effectively. While some research projects requiring only a few sources may seem easily tracked, research projects requiring more than a few sources are more effectively managed when you take good bibliographic and informational notes. As you gather evidence for your argumentative research paper, follow the descriptions and the electronic model to record your notes. You can combine these with your research log, or you can use the research log for secondary sources and your own note-taking system for primary sources if a division of this kind is helpful. Either way, be sure to include all necessary information.

Bibliographic Notes

These identify the source you are using. When you locate a useful source, record the information necessary to find that source again. It is important to do this as you find each source, even before taking notes from it. If you create bibliographic notes as you go along, then you can easily arrange them in alphabetical order later to prepare the reference list required at the end of formal academic papers. If your instructor requires you to use MLA formatting for your essay, be sure to record the following information:

• Title of source
• Title of container (larger work in which source is included)
• Other contributors
• Publication date

When using MLA style with online sources, also record the following information:

• Date of original publication
• Date of access
• DOI (A DOI, or digital object identifier, is a series of digits and letters that leads to the location of an online source. Articles in journals are often assigned DOIs to ensure that the source can be located, even if the URL changes. If your source is listed with a DOI, use that instead of a URL.)

It is important to understand which documentation style your instructor will require you to use. Check the Handbook for MLA Documentation and Format and APA Documentation and Format styles . In addition, you can check the style guide information provided by the Purdue Online Writing Lab .

Informational Notes

These notes record the relevant information found in your sources. When writing your essay, you will work from these notes, so be sure they contain all the information you need from every source you intend to use. Also try to focus your notes on your research question so that their relevance is clear when you read them later. To avoid confusion, work with separate entries for each piece of information recorded. At the top of each entry, identify the source through brief bibliographic identification (author and title), and note the page numbers on which the information appears. Also helpful is to add personal notes, including ideas for possible use of the information or cross-references to other information. As noted in Writing Process: Integrating Research , you will be using a variety of formats when borrowing from sources. Below is a quick review of these formats in terms of note-taking processes. By clarifying whether you are quoting directly, paraphrasing, or summarizing during these stages, you can record information accurately and thus take steps to avoid plagiarism.

Direct Quotations, Paraphrases, and Summaries

A direct quotation is an exact duplication of the author’s words as they appear in the original source. In your notes, put quotation marks around direct quotations so that you remember these words are the author’s, not yours. One advantage of copying exact quotations is that it allows you to decide later whether to include a quotation, paraphrase, or summary. ln general, though, use direct quotations only when the author’s words are particularly lively or persuasive.

A paraphrase is a restatement of the author’s words in your own words. Paraphrase to simplify or clarify the original author’s point. In your notes, use paraphrases when you need to record details but not exact words.

A summary is a brief condensation or distillation of the main point and most important details of the original source. Write a summary in your own words, with facts and ideas accurately represented. A summary is useful when specific details in the source are unimportant or irrelevant to your research question. You may find you can summarize several paragraphs or even an entire article or chapter in just a few sentences without losing useful information. It is a good idea to note when your entry contains a summary to remind you later that it omits detailed information. See Writing Process Integrating Research for more detailed information and examples of quotations, paraphrases, and summaries and when to use them.

Other Systems for Organizing Research Logs and Digital Note-Taking

Students often become frustrated and at times overwhelmed by the quantity of materials to be managed in the research process. If this is your first time working with both primary and secondary sources, finding ways to keep all of the information in one place and well organized is essential.

Because gathering primary evidence may be a relatively new practice, this section is designed to help you navigate the process. As mentioned earlier, information gathered in fieldwork is not cataloged, organized, indexed, or shelved for your convenience. Obtaining it requires diligence, energy, and planning. Online resources can assist you with keeping a research log. Your college library may have subscriptions to tools such as Todoist or EndNote. Consult with a librarian to find out whether you have access to any of these. If not, use something like the template shown in Figure 13.8 , or another like it, as a template for creating your own research notes and organizational tool. You will need to have a record of all field research data as well as the research log for all secondary sources.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/writing-guide/pages/1-unit-introduction

• Authors: Michelle Bachelor Robinson, Maria Jerskey, featuring Toby Fulwiler
• Publisher/website: OpenStax
• Book title: Writing Guide with Handbook
• Publication date: Dec 21, 2021
• Location: Houston, Texas
• Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/writing-guide/pages/1-unit-introduction
• Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/writing-guide/pages/13-5-research-process-making-notes-synthesizing-information-and-keeping-a-research-log

© Dec 19, 2023 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• Advance articles
• Editor's Choice
• Supplements
• French Abstracts
• Portuguese Abstracts
• Spanish Abstracts
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• About International Journal for Quality in Health Care
• About the International Society for Quality in Health Care
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Contact ISQua
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Primacy of the research question, structure of the paper, writing a research article: advice to beginners.

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Thomas V. Perneger, Patricia M. Hudelson, Writing a research article: advice to beginners, International Journal for Quality in Health Care , Volume 16, Issue 3, June 2004, Pages 191–192, https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzh053

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Writing research papers does not come naturally to most of us. The typical research paper is a highly codified rhetorical form [ 1 , 2 ]. Knowledge of the rules—some explicit, others implied—goes a long way toward writing a paper that will get accepted in a peer-reviewed journal.

A good research paper addresses a specific research question. The research question—or study objective or main research hypothesis—is the central organizing principle of the paper. Whatever relates to the research question belongs in the paper; the rest doesn’t. This is perhaps obvious when the paper reports on a well planned research project. However, in applied domains such as quality improvement, some papers are written based on projects that were undertaken for operational reasons, and not with the primary aim of producing new knowledge. In such cases, authors should define the main research question a posteriori and design the paper around it.

Generally, only one main research question should be addressed in a paper (secondary but related questions are allowed). If a project allows you to explore several distinct research questions, write several papers. For instance, if you measured the impact of obtaining written consent on patient satisfaction at a specialized clinic using a newly developed questionnaire, you may want to write one paper on the questionnaire development and validation, and another on the impact of the intervention. The idea is not to split results into ‘least publishable units’, a practice that is rightly decried, but rather into ‘optimally publishable units’.

What is a good research question? The key attributes are: (i) specificity; (ii) originality or novelty; and (iii) general relevance to a broad scientific community. The research question should be precise and not merely identify a general area of inquiry. It can often (but not always) be expressed in terms of a possible association between X and Y in a population Z, for example ‘we examined whether providing patients about to be discharged from the hospital with written information about their medications would improve their compliance with the treatment 1 month later’. A study does not necessarily have to break completely new ground, but it should extend previous knowledge in a useful way, or alternatively refute existing knowledge. Finally, the question should be of interest to others who work in the same scientific area. The latter requirement is more challenging for those who work in applied science than for basic scientists. While it may safely be assumed that the human genome is the same worldwide, whether the results of a local quality improvement project have wider relevance requires careful consideration and argument.

Once the research question is clearly defined, writing the paper becomes considerably easier. The paper will ask the question, then answer it. The key to successful scientific writing is getting the structure of the paper right. The basic structure of a typical research paper is the sequence of Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion (sometimes abbreviated as IMRAD). Each section addresses a different objective. The authors state: (i) the problem they intend to address—in other terms, the research question—in the Introduction; (ii) what they did to answer the question in the Methods section; (iii) what they observed in the Results section; and (iv) what they think the results mean in the Discussion.

In turn, each basic section addresses several topics, and may be divided into subsections (Table 1 ). In the Introduction, the authors should explain the rationale and background to the study. What is the research question, and why is it important to ask it? While it is neither necessary nor desirable to provide a full-blown review of the literature as a prelude to the study, it is helpful to situate the study within some larger field of enquiry. The research question should always be spelled out, and not merely left for the reader to guess.

Typical structure of a research paper

The Methods section should provide the readers with sufficient detail about the study methods to be able to reproduce the study if so desired. Thus, this section should be specific, concrete, technical, and fairly detailed. The study setting, the sampling strategy used, instruments, data collection methods, and analysis strategies should be described. In the case of qualitative research studies, it is also useful to tell the reader which research tradition the study utilizes and to link the choice of methodological strategies with the research goals [ 3 ].

The Results section is typically fairly straightforward and factual. All results that relate to the research question should be given in detail, including simple counts and percentages. Resist the temptation to demonstrate analytic ability and the richness of the dataset by providing numerous tables of non-essential results.

The Discussion section allows the most freedom. This is why the Discussion is the most difficult to write, and is often the weakest part of a paper. Structured Discussion sections have been proposed by some journal editors [ 4 ]. While strict adherence to such rules may not be necessary, following a plan such as that proposed in Table 1 may help the novice writer stay on track.

References should be used wisely. Key assertions should be referenced, as well as the methods and instruments used. However, unless the paper is a comprehensive review of a topic, there is no need to be exhaustive. Also, references to unpublished work, to documents in the grey literature (technical reports), or to any source that the reader will have difficulty finding or understanding should be avoided.

Having the structure of the paper in place is a good start. However, there are many details that have to be attended to while writing. An obvious recommendation is to read, and follow, the instructions to authors published by the journal (typically found on the journal’s website). Another concerns non-native writers of English: do have a native speaker edit the manuscript. A paper usually goes through several drafts before it is submitted. When revising a paper, it is useful to keep an eye out for the most common mistakes (Table 2 ). If you avoid all those, your paper should be in good shape.

Common mistakes seen in manuscripts submitted to this journal

Huth EJ . How to Write and Publish Papers in the Medical Sciences , 2nd edition. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins, 1990 .

Browner WS . Publishing and Presenting Clinical Research . Baltimore, MD: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, 1999 .

Devers KJ , Frankel RM. Getting qualitative research published. Educ Health 2001 ; 14 : 109 –117.

Docherty M , Smith R. The case for structuring the discussion of scientific papers. Br Med J 1999 ; 318 : 1224 –1225.

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1464-3677
• Print ISSN 1353-4505
• Copyright © 2024 International Society for Quality in Health Care and Oxford University Press
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Affiliate 💸

Get started free

Research Paper Sources

42 Timeless Tips On How To Effectively Take Research Notes

Improve your note-taking skills with timeless tips on effectively taking research notes. Enhance your study sessions and research projects today.

Mar 11, 2024

Discover the significance of meticulous note-taking in the realm of academia and research with a deep dive into the world of research notes. Understanding the distinction between primary vs secondary sources is crucial for scholarly pursuits. Uncover how researchers leverage these notes to capture critical insights, citations, and observations, providing a roadmap for future investigations. Gain valuable insights into the meticulous process of documenting, organizing, and analyzing research data for enhanced academic endeavors.

Table of Contents

What are research notes, complete guide on how to effectively take research notes, supercharge your researching ability with otio — try otio for free today.

Research notes are essential tools used by knowledge workers, researchers, and students to document and organize their findings, thoughts, and insights during the research process . These notes serve as a repository of information gathered from various sources such as articles, books, websites, and interviews. They help individuals track their progress, remember important details, and structure their ideas effectively.

How Can Otio Transform Your Research Workflow?

Knowledge workers, researchers, and students today struggle with content overload and the complexities of using multiple tools for their research tasks. Otio offers a solution by providing an AI-native workspace tailored for researchers. It simplifies the research process by enabling users to collect data from diverse sources, extract key takeaways using AI-generated notes, and create draft outputs seamlessly.  With features like AI-generated notes on various content types and AI-assisted writing, Otio streamlines the research process and helps individuals create high-quality research papers and essays efficiently.

Why Otio Stands Out as Your AI Research and Writing Partner

Otio stands out as an invaluable AI research and writing partner due to its ability to streamline the research process from data collection to content creation. By offering features such as AI-generated notes on all content types, interactive chat capabilities similar to ChatGPT, and AI-assisted writing, Otio empowers researchers to enhance their productivity and produce quality outputs faster. Embrace Otio as your AI research and writing partner today and experience a seamless and efficient research journey.

Otio - Your AI Research and Writing Partner

Knowledge workers, researchers, and students today suffer from content overload and are left to deal with it using fragmented, complex, and manual tooling. Too many of them settle for stitching together complicated bookmarking, read-it-later, and note-taking apps to get through their workflows. Now that anyone can create content with the click of a button - this problem is only going to get worse. Otio solves this problem by providing one AI-native workspace for researchers. It helps them: 

A wide range of data sources, from bookmarks, tweets, and extensive books to YouTube videos.

2. Extract key takeaways

With detailed AI-generated notes and source-grounded Q&A chat.

Draft outputs using the sources you’ve collected. Otio helps you to go from reading list to first draft faster. Along with this, Otio also helps you write research papers/essays faster. Here are our top features that are loved by researchers: AI-generated notes on all bookmarks (Youtube videos, PDFs, articles, etc.), Otio enables you to chat with individual links or entire knowledge bases, just like you chat with ChatGPT, as well as AI assisted writing. Let Otio be your AI research and writing partner — try Otio for free today!

Related Reading

• How To Read A Research Paper • Sources For Research Paper • How Many Sources Should A Research Paper Have • How To Read Scientific Papers • How To Find Sources For A Research Paper • Google Scholar Search Tips • Literature Synthesis

1. Use a Consistent Format

Create a clear structure for your notes to easily find and review information later.

2. Summarize Key Points

Condense information into concise summaries to grasp the main ideas quickly.

3. Organize by Topic

Categorize your notes by subject to maintain a logical flow of information.

4. Use Keywords

Highlight essential terms to quickly identify important concepts when revisiting your notes.

5. Include Citations

Record sources alongside your notes to ensure proper referencing in your research.

6. Use Abbreviations

Develop a list of abbreviations for common terms to streamline note-taking.

7. Visual Aids

Incorporate diagrams, charts, or tables to enhance understanding and retention.

8. Incorporate Quotations

Capture direct quotes accurately to support your arguments and findings.

9. Review Regularly

Schedule time to review and update your notes to reinforce retention.

10. Utilize Color Coding

Assign colors to different categories for a visual organization method.

11. Mind Mapping

Create visual representations of ideas to establish relationships between different concepts.

12. Include Page Numbers

Note the page numbers of your sources to locate information easily when needed.

13. Group Information

Group related details together for a comprehensive overview of specific topics.

14. Limit Bullet Points

Use bullet points sparingly to avoid overwhelming your notes with fragmented information.

15. Record Questions

Pose questions based on your notes to guide further research or critical thinking.

16. Define Acronyms

Define acronyms or abbreviations to ensure clarity in your notes.

17. Active Listening

Engage actively during lectures or interviews to capture essential points accurately.

18. Paraphrase

Rewrite information in your own words to deepen understanding and promote retention.

19. Avoid Plagiarism

Attribute ideas correctly and refrain from copying verbatim text without citation.

20. Separate Personal Insights

Distinguish your thoughts from the original content to maintain clarity.

21. Utilize Software Tools

Explore note-taking apps or software for digital organization and accessibility.

22. Create Templates

Establish templates for different types of research to streamline the note-taking process .

23. Prioritize Information

Focus on recording critical details over minor or tangential points.

24. Use Symbols

Employ symbols or icons to denote importance levels or key concepts in your notes.

25. Establish Timelines

Note dates or timelines within your research to track the progression of ideas or events.

26. Develop an Index

Create an index or table of contents for quick reference to specific topics within your notes.

27. Collaborate with Peers

Share notes with colleagues to gain diverse perspectives and enrich your research.

28. Track Sources

Keep a detailed record of all sources consulted to facilitate accurate referencing.

29. Embrace Digitalization

Digitize handwritten notes for easy access and searchability across platforms.

30. Prioritize Clarity

Ensure your notes are clear and concise to facilitate comprehension during review sessions.

31. Use Cross-References

Link related notes or concepts to establish connections within your research.

32. Emphasize Key Terms

Highlight crucial terms or concepts to draw attention to pivotal ideas.

33. Review and Edit

Regularly review and edit your notes for accuracy, relevance, and coherence.

34. Remove Redundancy

Eliminate redundant information to streamline your notes and enhance clarity.

35. Stay Updated

Continuously update your notes with new insights or discoveries to maintain relevance.

36. Engage with Multimedia

Incorporate multimedia elements like images or videos to enrich your notes.

37. Leverage Text Formatting

Utilize bold, italics, or underline for emphasis and hierarchy in your notes.

38. Seek Feedback

Share your notes with mentors or peers for constructive feedback and improvement.

39. Practice Active Reading

Engage critically with sources to extract essential information effectively.

40. Utilize Templates

Utilize note-taking templates for structured and efficient information organization.

41. Be Selective

Focus on capturing information that directly contributes to your research objectives.

42. Stay Consistent

Maintain a regular note-taking routine to cultivate a habit and enhance productivity.

AI research and writing partner

Knowledge workers, researchers, and students today suffer from content overload and are left to deal with it using fragmented, complex, and manual tooling. Too many of them settle for stitching together complicated bookmarking, read-it-later, and note-taking apps to get through their workflows. Now that anyone can create content with the click of a button - this problem is only going to get worse. Otio solves this problem by providing one AI-native workspace for researchers. It helps them:

Draft outputs using the sources you’ve collected. Otio helps you go from reading list to first draft faster. Along with this, Otio also helps you write research papers/essays faster. Here are our top features that are loved by researchers: AI-generated notes on all bookmarks (Youtube videos, PDFs, articles, etc.), Otio enables you to chat with individual links or entire knowledge bases, just like you chat with ChatGPT, as well as AI-assisted writing.  Let Otio be your AI research and writing partner — try Otio for free today!

• How To Tell If An Article Is Peer Reviewed • Reliable Sources For Research • Literature Search • How To Summarize A Research Article • Best Databases For Research • Using Ai For Research • Summarize Research Paper Ai • How To Use Chat Gpt For Research • How To Search For Research Articles

Research notes are a crucial aspect of any researcher's workflow, serving as the foundation for organizing, synthesizing, and retaining information gathered during the research process. These notes provide a roadmap for the researcher, aiding in the development of ideas, analysis, and ultimately, the creation of insightful and well-supported research papers or projects.

Setting Up Your Note-Taking System

1. choose the right tools.

Select a note-taking tool that aligns with your preferences and needs. Whether it's digital tools like Otio or traditional pen and paper, ensure it complements your research style.

2. Create a Structure

Establish a consistent and intuitive organizational system for your notes. Use headings, subheadings, bullet points, or numbering to categorize information effectively.

3. Utilize Templates

Develop templates for different types of research notes, such as literature reviews, interview summaries, or data analysis. Templates can streamline your note-taking process and maintain consistency.

Effective Note-Taking Strategies

1. active reading.

Engage with the material actively by highlighting key points, jotting down questions, and summarizing main ideas. This helps in digesting and internalizing the content.

2. Summarize and Paraphrase

Rather than copying verbatim, condense information into your own words. This aids in comprehension and prevents plagiarism when incorporating sources into your work.

3. Cite Sources Properly

Always record the sources of your information alongside your notes. Include bibliographic details or hyperlinks to ensure proper referencing and easy retrieval when needed.

Organizing and Reviewing Your Notes

1. create a tagging system.

Employ tags or labels to categorize and link related notes. This enables quick retrieval of information based on topics, themes, or keywords.

2. Regular Review

Schedule periodic reviews of your notes to reinforce learning, identify connections between ideas, and clarify any ambiguities. This practice enhances retention and aids in synthesizing information.

3. Revision and Refinement

Continuously refine and update your notes as your research progresses. Add new insights, revisit older notes for relevance, and connect disparate pieces of information to enhance the coherence of your work.

Transforming Research Efficiency with Otio's AI-Powered Workspace

Knowledge workers, researchers, and students can revolutionize their research processes with Otio , an AI-native workspace designed to streamline data collection, extraction of key insights, and creation of draft outputs. By integrating AI-generated notes, source-grounded Q&A chat features, and AI-assisted writing capabilities, Otio empowers users to navigate the complexities of research effectively.  Embrace a seamless research experience with Otio - your ultimate AI research and writing partner .

Otio addresses the content overload challenge faced by knowledge workers, researchers, and students by offering an all-in-one AI-native workspace. By allowing users to seamlessly collect data from various sources such as bookmarks, tweets, articles, and videos, Otio simplifies the initial stage of the research process. This aggregation feature not only saves time but also ensures that users have a comprehensive set of resources at their disposal.

AI-Generated Notes and Source-Grounded Q&A Chat

One of Otio 's standout features is its ability to extract key takeaways from collected sources by providing detailed AI-generated notes. These notes offer a condensed version of the content, making it easier for researchers to grasp essential information quickly. The source-grounded Q&A chat function enables users to engage with their collected material in a conversational manner, facilitating a deeper understanding of the content.

Efficient Drafting with Otio

Transitioning from reading materials to drafting outputs is often a time-consuming process for researchers. Otio streamlines this transition by assisting users in creating draft outputs directly from the sources they have collected. This feature not only accelerates the writing process but also ensures that the drafted content remains closely tied to the original sources, enhancing the overall quality of the output.

AI-Assisted Writing for Research Papers/Essays

In addition to its data collection and note-taking capabilities, Otio offers AI-assisted writing functionality to help users compose research papers and essays more efficiently. By leveraging AI technology, Otio provides users with writing suggestions, grammar corrections , and structural guidance, empowering them to produce high-quality written work in less time.

Embracing Otio as Your AI Research and Writing Partner

Otio's comprehensive suite of features, including AI-generated notes, source-grounded Q&A chat, efficient drafting tools, and AI-assisted writing, make it a valuable asset for knowledge workers, researchers, and students looking to streamline their research workflows. By integrating Otio into their processes, users can enhance their productivity, improve the quality of their work, and ultimately, achieve greater success in their research endeavors.

• Best Reference Manager • Chatpdf Alternative • Ai Research Tools • Elicit AI • Consensus Ai • Sematic Scholar • Research Paper Writing App • Research Paper Reader • How Does Chatpdf Work • Scholarcy Alternative

Sep 5, 2024

Literature Review

11 Best Summary Graphic Organizer Templates

Sep 4, 2024

5 Best Graphic Organizer Examples

Join over 80,000 researchers changing the way they read & write

Chrome Extension

© 2024 Frontdoor Labs Ltd.

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

Refund Policy

Join over 50,000 researchers changing the way they read & write

Join thousands of other scholars and researchers

Try Otio Free

© 2023 Frontdoor Labs Ltd.

Office of Undergraduate Research

• Office of Undergraduate Research FAQ's
• URSA Engage
• Resources for Students
• Resources for Faculty
• Engaging in Research
• Presenting Your Research
• Earn Money by Participating in Research Studies
• Funding and Awards
• Transcript Notation
• Student Publications

How to take Research Notes

How to take research notes.

Your research notebook is an important piece of information useful for future projects and presentations. Maintaining organized and legible notes allows your research notebook to be a valuable resource to you and your research group. It allows others and yourself to replicate experiments, and it also serves as a useful troubleshooting tool. Besides it being an important part of the research process, taking detailed notes of your research will help you stay organized and allow you to easily review your work.

Here are some common reasons to maintain organized notes:

• Keeps a record of your goals and thoughts during your research experiments.
• Keeps a record of what worked and what didn't in your research experiments.
• Enables others to use your notes as a guide for similar procedures and techniques.
• A helpful tool to reference when writing a paper, submitting a proposal, or giving a presentation.
• Assists you in answering experimental questions.
• Useful to efficiently share experimental approaches, data, and results with others.

Before taking notes:

• Ask your research professor what note-taking method they recommend or prefer.
• Consider what type of media you'll be using to take notes.
• Once you have decided on how you'll be taking notes, be sure to keep all of your notes in one place to remain organized.
• Plan on taking notes regularly (meetings, important dates, procedures, journal/manuscript revisions, etc.).
• This is useful when applying to programs or internships that ask about your research experience.

Note Taking Tips:

Taking notes by hand:.

• Research notebooks don’t belong to you so make sure your notes are legible for others.
• Use post-it notes or tabs to flag important sections.
• Start sorting your notes early so that you don't become backed up and disorganized.
• Only write with a pen as pencils aren’t permanent & sharpies can bleed through.
• Make it a habit to write in your notebook and not directly on sticky notes or paper towels. Rewriting notes can waste time and sometimes lead to inaccurate data or results.

Taking Notes Electronically

• Make sure your device is charged and backed up to store data.
• Invest in note-taking apps or E-Ink tablets
• Create shortcuts to your folders so you have easier access
• Create outlines.
• Keep your notes short and legible.

Note Taking Tips Continued:

Things to avoid.

• Avoid using pencils or markers that may bleed through.
• Avoid erasing entries. Instead, draw a straight line through any mistakes and write the date next to the crossed-out information.
• Avoid writing in cursive.
• Avoid delaying your entries so you don’t fall behind and forget information.

Formatting Tips

• Use bullet points to condense your notes to make them simpler to access or color-code them.
• Tracking your failures and mistakes can improve your work in the future.
• If possible, take notes as you’re experimenting or make time at the end of each workday to get it done.
• Record the date at the start of every day, including all dates spent on research.

Types of media to use when taking notes:

Traditional paper notebook.

• Pros: Able to take quick notes, convenient access to notes, cheaper option
• Cons: Requires a table of contents or tabs as it is not easily searchable, can get damaged easily, needs to be scanned if making a digital copy

Electronic notebook  

• Apple Notes  
• Pros: Easily searchable, note-taking apps available, easy to edit & customize
• Cons: Can be difficult to find notes if they are unorganized, not as easy to take quick notes, can be a more expensive option

Combination of both

Contact info.

618 Kerr Administration Building Corvallis, OR 97331

541-737-5105

How to Take Notes

How to Use Sources Effectively

Most articles in periodicals and some of the book sources you use, especially those from the children’s room at the library, are probably short enough that you can read them from beginning to end in a reasonable amount of time. Others, however, may be too long for you to do that, and some are likely to cover much more than just your topic. Use the table of contents and the index in a longer book to find the parts of the book that contain information on your topic. When you turn to those parts, skim them to make sure they contain information you can use. Feel free to skip parts that don’t relate to your questions, so you can get the information you need as quickly and efficiently as possible.

Academic Writing, Editing, Proofreading, And Problem Solving Services

Get 10% off with 24start discount code, methods for note taking.

Don’t—start reading a book and writing down information on a sheet of notebook paper. If you make this mistake, you’ll end up with a lot of disorganized scribbling that may be practically useless when you’re ready to outline your research paper and write a first draft. Some students who tried this had to cut up their notes into tiny strips, spread them out on the floor, and then tape the strips back together in order to put their information in an order that made sense. Other students couldn’t even do that—without going to a photocopier first—because they had written on both sides of the paper. To avoid that kind of trouble, use the tried-and-true method students have been using for years—take notes on index cards.

Taking Notes on Index Cards

As you begin reading your sources, use either 3″ x 5″ or 4″ x 6″ index cards to write down information you might use in your paper. The first thing to remember is: Write only one idea on each card. Even if you write only a few words on one card, don’t write anything about a new idea on that card. Begin a new card instead. Also, keep all your notes for one card only on that card. It’s fine to write on both the front and back of a card, but don’t carry the same note over to a second card. If you have that much to write, you probably have more than one idea.

After you complete a note card, write the source number of the book you used in the upper left corner of the card. Below the source number, write the exact number or numbers of the pages on which you found the information. In the upper right corner, write one or two words that describe the specific subject of the card. These words are like a headline that describes the main information on the card. Be as clear as possible because you will need these headlines later.

After you finish taking notes from a source, write a check mark on your source card as a reminder that you’ve gone through that source thoroughly and written down all the important information you found there. That way, you won’t wonder later whether you should go back and read that source again.

Taking Notes on Your Computer

Another way to take notes is on your computer. In order to use this method, you have to rely completely on sources that you can take home, unless you have a laptop computer that you can take with you to the library.

If you do choose to take notes on your computer, think of each entry on your screen as one in a pack of electronic note cards. Write your notes exactly as if you were using index cards. Be sure to leave space between each note so that they don’t run together and look confusing when you’re ready to use them. You might want to insert a page break between each “note card.”

When deciding whether to use note cards or a computer, remember one thing—high-tech is not always better. Many students find low-tech index cards easier to organize and use than computer notes that have to be moved around by cutting and pasting. In the end, you’re the one who knows best how you work, so the choice is up to you.

How to Take Effective Notes

Knowing the best format for notes is important, but knowing what to write on your cards or on your computer is essential. Strong notes are the backbone of a good research paper.

Not Too Much or Too Little

When researching, you’re likely to find a lot of interesting information that you never knew before. That’s great! You can never learn too much. But for now your goal is to find information you can use in your research paper. Giving in to the temptation to take notes on every detail you find in your research can lead to a huge volume of notes—many of which you won’t use at all. This can become difficult to manage at later stages, so limit yourself to information that really belongs in your paper. If you think a piece of information might be useful but you aren’t sure, ask yourself whether it helps answer one of your research questions.

Writing too much is one pitfall; writing too little is another. Consider this scenario: You’ve been working in the library for a couple of hours, and your hand grows tired from writing. You come to a fairly complicated passage about how to tell if a dog is angry, so you say to yourself, “I don’t have to write all this down. I’ll remember.” But you won’t remember—especially after all the reading and note taking you have been doing. If you find information you know you want to use later on, get it down. If you’re too tired, take a break or take off the rest of the day and return tomorrow when you’re fresh.

To Note or Not to Note: That is the Question

What if you come across an idea or piece of information that you’ve already found in another source? Should you write it down again? You don’t want to end up with a whole stack of cards with the same information on each one. On the other hand, knowing that more than one source agrees on a particular point is helpful. Here’s the solution: Simply add the number of the new source to the note card that already has the same piece of information written on it. Take notes on both sources. In your paper, you may want to come right out and say that sources disagree on this point. You may even want to support one opinion or the other—if you think you have a strong enough argument based on facts from your research.

Paraphrasing—Not Copying

Have you ever heard the word plagiarism? It means copying someone else’s words and claiming them as your own. It’s really a kind of stealing, and there are strict rules against it.

The trouble is many students plagiarize without meaning to do so. The problem starts at the note-taking stage. As a student takes notes, he or she may simply copy the exact words from a source. The student doesn’t put quotation marks around the words to show that they are someone else’s. When it comes time to draft the paper, the student doesn’t even remember that those words were copied from a source, and the words find their way into the draft and then into the final paper. Without intending to do so, that student has plagiarized, or stolen, another person’s words.

The way to avoid plagiarism is to paraphrase, or write down ideas in your own words rather than copy them exactly. Look again at the model note cards in this chapter, and notice that the words in the notes are not the same as the words from the sources. Some of the notes are not even written in complete sentences. Writing in incomplete sentences is one way to make sure you don’t copy—and it saves you time, energy, and space. When you write a draft of your research paper, of course, you will use complete sentences.

How to Organize Your Notes

Once you’ve used all your sources and taken all your notes, what do you have? You have a stack of cards (or if you’ve taken notes on a computer, screen after screen of entries) about a lot of stuff in no particular order. Now you need to organize your notes in order to turn them into the powerful tool that helps you outline and draft your research paper. Following are some ideas on how to do this, so get your thinking skills in gear to start doing the job for your own paper.

Organizing Note Cards

The beauty of using index cards to take notes is that you can move them around until they are in the order you want. You don’t have to go through complicated cutting-and-pasting procedures, as you would on your computer, and you can lay your cards out where you can see them all at once. One word of caution—work on a surface where your cards won’t fall on the floor while you’re organizing them.

Start by sorting all your cards with the same headlines into the same piles, since all of these note cards are about the same basic idea. You don’t have to worry about keeping notes from the same sources together because each card is marked with a number identifying its source.

Next, arrange the piles of cards so that the order the ideas appear in makes sense. Experts have named six basic types of order. One—or a combination of these—may work for you:

• Chronological , or Time, Order covers events in the order in which they happened. This kind of order works best for papers that discuss historical events or tell about a person’s life.
• Spatial  Order organizes your information by its place or position. This kind of order can work for papers about geography or about how to design something—a garden, for example.
• Cause and Effect  discusses how one event or action leads to another. This kind of organization works well if your paper explains a scientific process or events in history.
• Problem/Solution explains a problem and one or more ways in which it can be solved. You might use this type of organization for a paper about an environmental issue, such as global warming.
• Compare and Contrast  discusses similarities and differences between people, things, events, or ideas.
• Order of  Importance  explains an idea, starting with its most important aspects first and ending with the least important aspects—or the other way around.

After you determine your basic organization, arrange your piles accordingly. You’ll end up with three main piles—one for sounds, one for facial expressions, and one for body language. Go through each pile and put the individual cards in an order that makes sense. Don’t forget that you can move your cards around, trying out different organizations, until you are satisfied that one idea flows logically into another. Use a paper clip or rubber band to hold the piles together, and then stack them in the order you choose. Put a big rubber band around the whole stack so the cards stay in order.

Organizing Notes on Your Computer

If you’ve taken notes on a computer, organize them in much the same way you would organize index cards. The difference is that you use the cut-and-paste functions on your computer rather than moving cards around. The advantage is that you end up with something that’s already typed—something you can eventually turn into an outline without having to copy anything over. The disadvantage is that you may have more trouble moving computer notes around than note cards: You can’t lay your notes out and look at them all at once, and you may get confused when trying to find where information has moved within a long file on your computer screen.

However, be sure to back up your note cards on an external storage system of your choice. In addition, print hard copies as you work. This way, you won’t lose your material if your hard drive crashes or the file develops a glitch.

Developing a Working Bibliography

When you start your research, your instructor may ask you to prepare a working bibliography listing the sources you plan to use. Your working bibliography differs from your Works Cited page in its scope: your working bibliography is much larger. Your Works Cited page will include only those sources you have actually cited in your research paper.

To prepare a working bibliography, arrange your note cards in the order required by your documentation system (such as MLA and APA) and keyboard the entries following the correct form. If you have created your bibliography cards on the computer, you just have to sort them, usually into alphabetical order.

Developing an Annotated Bibliography

Some instructors may ask you to create an annotated bibliography as a middle step between your working bibliography and your Works Cited page. An annotated bibliography is the same as a working bibliography except that it includes comments about the sources. These notes enable your instructor to assess your progress. They also help you evaluate your information more easily. For example, you might note that some sources are difficult to find, hard to read, or especially useful.

ORDER HIGH QUALITY CUSTOM PAPER

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

9 Organizing Research: Taking and Keeping Effective Notes

Once you’ve located the right primary and secondary sources, it’s time to glean all the information you can from them. In this chapter, you’ll first get some tips on taking and organizing notes. The second part addresses how to approach the sort of intermediary assignments (such as book reviews) that are often part of a history course.

Honing your own strategy for organizing your primary and secondary research is a pathway to less stress and better paper success. Moreover, if you can find the method that helps you best organize your notes, these methods can be applied to research you do for any of your classes.

Before the personal computing revolution, most historians labored through archives and primary documents and wrote down their notes on index cards, and then found innovative ways to organize them for their purposes. When doing secondary research, historians often utilized (and many still do) pen and paper for taking notes on secondary sources. With the advent of digital photography and useful note-taking tools like OneNote, some of these older methods have been phased out – though some persist. And, most importantly, once you start using some of the newer techniques below, you may find that you are a little “old school,” and might opt to integrate some of the older techniques with newer technology.

Whether you choose to use a low-tech method of taking and organizing your notes or an app that will help you organize your research, here are a few pointers for good note-taking.

Principles of note-taking

• If you are going low-tech, choose a method that prevents a loss of any notes. Perhaps use one spiral notebook, or an accordion folder, that will keep everything for your project in one space. If you end up taking notes away from your notebook or folder, replace them—or tape them onto blank pages if you are using a notebook—as soon as possible.
• If you are going high-tech, pick one application and stick with it. Using a cloud-based app, including one that you can download to your smart phone, will allow you to keep adding to your notes even if you find yourself with time to take notes unexpectedly.
• When taking notes, whether you’re using 3X5 note cards or using an app described below, write down the author and a shortened title for the publication, along with the page number on EVERY card. We can’t emphasize this point enough; writing down the bibliographic information the first time and repeatedly will save you loads of time later when you are writing your paper and must cite all key information.
• Include keywords or “tags” that capture why you thought to take down this information in a consistent place on each note card (and when using the apps described below). If you are writing a paper about why Martin Luther King, Jr., became a successful Civil Rights movement leader, for example, you may have a few theories as you read his speeches or how those around him described his leadership. Those theories—religious beliefs, choice of lieutenants, understanding of Gandhi—might become the tags you put on each note card.
• Note-taking applications can help organize tags for you, but if you are going low tech, a good idea is to put tags on the left side of a note card, and bibliographic info on the right side.

Organizing research- applications that can help

Using images in research.

• If you are in an archive: make your first picture one that includes the formal collection name, the box number, the folder name and call numbe r and anything else that would help you relocate this information if you or someone else needed to. Do this BEFORE you start taking photos of what is in the folder.
• If you are photographing a book or something you may need to return to the library: take a picture of all the front matter (the title page, the page behind the title with all the publication information, maybe even the table of contents).

Once you have recorded where you find it, resist the urge to rename these photographs. By renaming them, they may be re-ordered and you might forget where you found them. Instead, use tags for your own purposes, and carefully name and date the folder into which the photographs were automatically sorted. There is one free, open-source program, Tropy , which is designed to help organize photos taken in archives, as well as tag, annotate, and organize them. It was developed and is supported by the Roy Rosenzweig Center for History and New Media at George Mason University. It is free to download, and you can find it here: https://tropy.org/ ; it is not, however, cloud-based, so you should back up your photos. In other cases, if an archive doesn’t allow photography (this is highly unlikely if you’ve made the trip to the archive), you might have a laptop on hand so that you can transcribe crucial documents.

Using note or project-organizing apps

When you have the time to sit down and begin taking notes on your primary sources, you can annotate your photos in Tropy. Alternatively, OneNote, which is cloud-based, can serve as a way to organize your research. OneNote allows you to create separate “Notebooks” for various projects, but this doesn’t preclude you from searching for terms or tags across projects if the need ever arises. Within each project you can start new tabs, say, for each different collection that you have documents from, or you can start new tabs for different themes that you are investigating. Just as in Tropy, as you go through taking notes on your documents you can create your own “tags” and place them wherever you want in the notes.

Another powerful, free tool to help organize research, especially secondary research though not exclusively, is Zotero found @ https://www.zotero.org/ . Once downloaded, you can begin to save sources (and their URL) that you find on the internet to Zotero. You can create main folders for each major project that you have and then subfolders for various themes if you would like. Just like the other software mentioned, you can create notes and tags about each source, and Zotero can also be used to create bibliographies in the precise format that you will be using. Obviously, this function is super useful when doing a long-term, expansive project like a thesis or dissertation.

How History is Made: A Student’s Guide to Reading, Writing, and Thinking in the Discipline Copyright © 2022 by Stephanie Cole; Kimberly Breuer; Scott W. Palmer; and Brandon Blakeslee is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

How to Do Research: A Step-By-Step Guide: 4a. Take Notes

• Get Started
• 1a. Select a Topic
• 1b. Develop Research Questions
• 1c. Identify Keywords
• 1d. Find Background Information
• 1e. Refine a Topic
• 2a. Search Strategies
• 2d. Articles
• 2e. Videos & Images
• 2f. Databases
• 2g. Websites
• 2h. Grey Literature
• 2i. Open Access Materials
• 3a. Evaluate Sources
• 3b. Primary vs. Secondary
• 3c. Types of Periodicals
• 4a. Take Notes
• 4b. Outline the Paper
• 4c. Incorporate Source Material
• 5a. Avoid Plagiarism
• 5b. Zotero & MyBib
• 5c. MLA Formatting
• 5d. MLA Citation Examples
• 5e. APA Formatting
• 5f. APA Citation Examples
• 5g. Annotated Bibliographies

Note Taking in Bibliographic Management Tools

We encourage students to use bibliographic citation management tools (such as Zotero, EasyBib and RefWorks) to keep track of their research citations. Each service includes a note-taking function. Find more information about citation management tools here . Whether or not you're using one of these, the tips below will help you.

Tips for Taking Notes Electronically

• Try using a bibliographic citation management tool to keep track of your sources and to take notes.
• As you add sources, put them in the format you're using (MLA, APA, Chicago, etc.).
• Group sources by publication type (i.e., book, article, website).
• Number each source within the publication type group.
• For websites, include the URL information and the date you accessed each site.
• Next to each idea, include the source number from the Works Cited file and the page number from the source. See the examples below. Note that #A5 and #B2 refer to article source 5 and book source 2 from the Works Cited file.

#A5 p.35: 76.69% of the hyperlinks selected from homepage are for articles and the catalog #B2 p.76: online library guides evolved from the paper pathfinders of the 1960s

• When done taking notes, assign keywords or sub-topic headings to each idea, quote or summary.
• Use the copy and paste feature to group keywords or sub-topic ideas together.
• Back up your master list and note files frequently!

Tips for Taking Notes by Hand

• Use index cards to keep notes and track sources used in your paper.
• Include the citation (i.e., author, title, publisher, date, page numbers, etc.) in the format you're using. It will be easier to organize the sources alphabetically when creating the Works Cited page.
• Number the source cards.
• Use only one side to record a single idea, fact or quote from one source. It will be easier to rearrange them later when it comes time to organize your paper.
• Include a heading or key words at the top of the card. 
• Include the Work Cited source card number.
• Include the page number where you found the information.
• Use abbreviations, acronyms, or incomplete sentences to record information to speed up the notetaking process.
• Write down only the information that answers your research questions.
• Use symbols, diagrams, charts or drawings to simplify and visualize ideas.

Forms of Notetaking

Use one of these notetaking forms to capture information:

• Summarize : Capture the main ideas of the source succinctly by restating them in your own words.
• Paraphrase : Restate the author's ideas in your own words.
• Quote : Copy the quotation exactly as it appears in the original source. Put quotation marks around the text and note the name of the person you are quoting.

Example of a Work Cited Card

Example notecard.

• << Previous: Step 4: Write
• Next: 4b. Outline the Paper >>
• Last Updated: Aug 13, 2024 3:10 PM
• URL: https://libguides.elmira.edu/research

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

• Reading Research Effectively
• Purpose of Guide
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Independent and Dependent Variables
• Glossary of Research Terms
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
• Academic Writing Style
• Applying Critical Thinking
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• Research Process Video Series
• Executive Summary
• The C.A.R.S. Model
• Background Information
• The Research Problem/Question
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Tracking
• Content Alert Services
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tiertiary Sources
• Scholarly vs. Popular Publications
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Insiderness
• Using Non-Textual Elements
• Limitations of the Study
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Writing Concisely
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Footnotes or Endnotes?
• Further Readings
• Generative AI and Writing
• USC Libraries Tutorials and Other Guides
• Bibliography

Reading a Scholarly Article or Research Paper

Identifying a research problem to investigate requires a preliminary search for and critical review of the literature in order to gain an understanding about how scholars have examined a topic. Scholars rarely structure research studies in a way that can be followed like a story; they are complex and detail-intensive and often written in a descriptive and conclusive narrative form. However, in the social and behavioral sciences, journal articles and stand-alone research reports are generally organized in a consistent format that makes it easier to compare and contrast studies and interpret their findings.

General Reading Strategies

W hen you first read an article or research paper, focus on asking specific questions about each section. This strategy can help with overall comprehension and with understanding how the content relates [or does not relate] to the problem you want to investigate. As you review more and more studies, the process of understanding and critically evaluating the research will become easier because the content of what you review will begin to coalescence around common themes and patterns of analysis. Below are recommendations on how to read each section of a research paper effectively. Note that the sections to read are out of order from how you will find them organized in a journal article or research paper.

1.  Abstract

The abstract summarizes the background, methods, results, discussion, and conclusions of a scholarly article or research paper. Use the abstract to filter out sources that may have appeared useful when you began searching for information but, in reality, are not relevant. Questions to consider when reading the abstract are:

• Is this study related to my question or area of research?
• What is this study about and why is it being done ?
• What is the working hypothesis or underlying thesis?
• What is the primary finding of the study?
• Are there words or terminology that I can use to either narrow or broaden the parameters of my search for more information?

2.  Introduction

If, after reading the abstract, you believe the paper may be useful, focus on examining the research problem and identifying the questions the author is trying to address. This information is usually located within the first few paragraphs of the introduction or in the concluding paragraph. Look for information about how and in what way this relates to what you are investigating. In addition to the research problem, the introduction should provide the main argument and theoretical framework of the study and, in the last paragraphs of the introduction, describe what the author(s) intend to accomplish. Questions to consider when reading the introduction include:

• What is this study trying to prove or disprove?
• What is the author(s) trying to test or demonstrate?
• What do we already know about this topic and what gaps does this study try to fill or contribute a new understanding to the research problem?
• Why should I care about what is being investigated?
• Will this study tell me anything new related to the research problem I am investigating?

3.  Literature Review

The literature review describes and critically evaluates what is already known about a topic. Read the literature review to obtain a big picture perspective about how the topic has been studied and to begin the process of seeing where your potential study fits within the domain of prior research. Questions to consider when reading the literature review include:

• W hat other research has been conducted about this topic and what are the main themes that have emerged?
• What does prior research reveal about what is already known about the topic and what remains to be discovered?
• What have been the most important past findings about the research problem?
• How has prior research led the author(s) to conduct this particular study?
• Is there any prior research that is unique or groundbreaking?
• Are there any studies I could use as a model for designing and organizing my own study?

4.  Discussion/Conclusion

The discussion and conclusion are usually the last two sections of text in a scholarly article or research report. They reveal how the author(s) interpreted the findings of their research and presented recommendations or courses of action based on those findings. Often in the conclusion, the author(s) highlight recommendations for further research that can be used to develop your own study. Questions to consider when reading the discussion and conclusion sections include:

• What is the overall meaning of the study and why is this important? [i.e., how have the author(s) addressed the " So What? " question].
• What do you find to be the most important ways that the findings have been interpreted?
• What are the weaknesses in their argument?
• Do you believe conclusions about the significance of the study and its findings are valid?
• What limitations of the study do the author(s) describe and how might this help formulate my own research?
• Does the conclusion contain any recommendations for future research?

5.  Methods/Methodology

The methods section describes the materials, techniques, and procedures for gathering information used to examine the research problem. If what you have read so far closely supports your understanding of the topic, then move on to examining how the author(s) gathered information during the research process. Questions to consider when reading the methods section include:

• Did the study use qualitative [based on interviews, observations, content analysis], quantitative [based on statistical analysis], or a mixed-methods approach to examining the research problem?
• What was the type of information or data used?
• Could this method of analysis be repeated and can I adopt the same approach?
• Is enough information available to repeat the study or should new data be found to expand or improve understanding of the research problem?

6.  Results

After reading the above sections, you should have a clear understanding of the general findings of the study. Therefore, read the results section to identify how key findings were discussed in relation to the research problem. If any non-textual elements [e.g., graphs, charts, tables, etc.] are confusing, focus on the explanations about them in the text. Questions to consider when reading the results section include:

• W hat did the author(s) find and how did they find it?
• Does the author(s) highlight any findings as most significant?
• Are the results presented in a factual and unbiased way?
• Does the analysis of results in the discussion section agree with how the results are presented?
• Is all the data present and did the author(s) adequately address gaps?
• What conclusions do you formulate from this data and does it match with the author's conclusions?

7.  References

The references list the sources used by the author(s) to document what prior research and information was used when conducting the study. After reviewing the article or research paper, use the references to identify additional sources of information on the topic and to examine critically how these sources supported the overall research agenda. Questions to consider when reading the references include:

• Do the sources cited by the author(s) reflect a diversity of disciplinary viewpoints, i.e., are the sources all from a particular field of study or do the sources reflect multiple areas of study?
• Are there any unique or interesting sources that could be incorporated into my study?
• What other authors are respected in this field, i.e., who has multiple works cited or is cited most often by others?
• What other research should I review to clarify any remaining issues or that I need more information about?

NOTE:   A final strategy in reviewing research is to copy and paste the title of the source [journal article, book, research report] into Google Scholar . If it appears, look for a "cited by" reference followed by a hyperlinked number under the record [e.g., Cited by 45]. This number indicates how many times the study has been subsequently cited in other, more recently published works. This strategy, known as citation tracking, can be an effective means of expanding your review of pertinent literature based on a study you have found useful and how scholars have cited it. The same strategies described above can be applied to reading articles you find in the list of cited by references.

Reading Tip

Specific Reading Strategies

Effectively reading scholarly research is an acquired skill that involves attention to detail and an ability to comprehend complex ideas, data, and theoretical concepts in a way that applies logically to the research problem you are investigating. Here are some specific reading strategies to consider.

As You are Reading

• Focus on information that is most relevant to the research problem; skim over the other parts.
• As noted above, read content out of order! This isn't a novel; you want to start with the spoiler to quickly assess the relevance of the study.
• Think critically about what you read and seek to build your own arguments; not everything may be entirely valid, examined effectively, or thoroughly investigated.
• Look up the definitions of unfamiliar words, concepts, or terminology. A good scholarly source is Credo Reference .

Taking notes as you read will save time when you go back to examine your sources. Here are some suggestions:

• Mark or highlight important text as you read [e.g., you can use the highlight text  feature in a PDF document]
• Take notes in the margins [e.g., Adobe Reader offers pop-up sticky notes].
• Highlight important quotations; consider using different highlighting colors to differentiate between quotes and other types of important text.
• Summarize key points about the study at the end of the paper. To save time, these can be in the form of a concise bulleted list of statements [e.g., intro provides useful historical background; lit review has important sources; good conclusions].

Write down thoughts that come to mind that may help clarify your understanding of the research problem. Here are some examples of questions to ask yourself:

• Do I understand all of the terminology and key concepts?
• Do I understand the parts of this study most relevant to my topic?
• What specific problem does the research address and why is it important?
• Are there any issues or perspectives the author(s) did not consider?
• Do I have any reason to question the validity or reliability of this research?
• How do the findings relate to my research interests and to other works which I have read?

Adapted from text originally created by Holly Burt, Behavioral Sciences Librarian, USC Libraries, April 2018.

Another Reading Tip

When is it Important to Read the Entire Article or Research Paper

Laubepin argues, "Very few articles in a field are so important that every word needs to be read carefully." * However, this implies that some studies are worth reading carefully if they directly relate to understanding the research problem. As arduous as it may seem, there are valid reasons for reading a study from beginning to end. Here are some examples:

• Studies Published Very Recently .  The author(s) of a recent, well written study will provide a survey of the most important or impactful prior research in the literature review section. This can establish an understanding of how scholars in the past addressed the research problem. In addition, the most recently published sources will highlight what is known and what gaps in understanding currently exist about a topic, usually in the form of the need for further research in the conclusion .
• Surveys of the Research Problem .  Some papers provide a comprehensive analytical overview of the research problem. Reading this type of study can help you understand underlying issues and discover why scholars have chosen to investigate the topic. This is particularly important if the study was published recently because the author(s) should cite all or most of the important prior research on the topic. Note that, if it is a long-standing problem, there may be studies that specifically review the literature to identify gaps that remain. These studies often include the word "review" in their title [e.g., Hügel, Stephan, and Anna R. Davies. "Public Participation, Engagement, and Climate Change Adaptation: A Review of the Research Literature." Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 11 (July-August 2020): https://doi.org/10.1002/ wcc.645].
• Highly Cited .  If you keep coming across the same citation to a study while you are reviewing the literature, this implies it was foundational in establishing an understanding of the research problem or the study had a significant impact within the literature [either positive or negative]. Carefully reading a highly cited source can help you understand how the topic emerged and how it motivated scholars to further investigate the problem. It also could be a study you need to cite as foundational in your own paper to demonstrate to the reader that you understand the roots of the problem.
• Historical Overview .  Knowing the historical background of a research problem may not be the focus of your analysis. Nevertheless, carefully reading a study that provides a thorough description and analysis of the history behind an event, issue, or phenomenon can add important context to understanding the topic and what aspect of the problem you may want to examine further.
• Innovative Methodological Design .  Some studies are significant and should be read in their entirety because the author(s) designed a unique or innovative approach to researching the problem. This may justify reading the entire study because it can motivate you to think creatively about also pursuing an alternative or non-traditional approach to examining your topic of interest. These types of studies are generally easy to identify because they are often cited in others works because of their unique approach to examining the research problem.
• Cross-disciplinary Approach .  R eviewing studies produced outside of your discipline is an essential component of investigating research problems in the social and behavioral sciences. Consider reading a study that was conducted by author(s) based in a different discipline [e.g., an anthropologist studying political cultures; a study of hiring practices in companies published in a sociology journal]. This approach can generate a new understanding or a unique perspective about the topic . If you are not sure how to search for studies published in a discipline outside of your major or of the course you are taking, contact a librarian for assistance.

* Laubepin, Frederique. How to Read (and Understand) a Social Science Journal Article . Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research (ISPSR), 2013

Shon, Phillip Chong Ho. How to Read Journal Articles in the Social Sciences: A Very Practical Guide for Students . 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2015; Lockhart, Tara, and Mary Soliday. "The Critical Place of Reading in Writing Transfer (and Beyond): A Report of Student Experiences." Pedagogy 16 (2016): 23-37; Maguire, Moira, Ann Everitt Reynolds, and Brid Delahunt. "Reading to Be: The Role of Academic Reading in Emergent Academic and Professional Student Identities." Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice 17 (2020): 5-12.

• << Previous: 1. Choosing a Research Problem
• Next: Narrowing a Topic Idea >>
• Last Updated: Sep 4, 2024 9:40 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

Extract key information from research papers with our AI summarizer.

Get a snapshot of what matters – fast . Break down complex concepts into easy-to-read sections. Skim or dive deep with a clean reading experience.

Summarize, analyze, and organize your research in one place.

Features built for scholars like you, trusted by researchers and students around the world.

Summarize papers, PDFs, book chapters, online articles and more.

Easy import

Drag and drop files, enter the url of a page, paste a block of text, or use our browser extension.

Enhanced summary

Change the summary to suit your reading style. Choose from a bulleted list, one-liner and more.

Read the key points of a paper in seconds with confidence that everything you read comes from the original text.

Clean reading

Clutter free flashcards help you skim or diver deeper into the details and quickly jump between sections.

Highlighted key terms and findings. Let evidence-based statements guide you through the full text with confidence.

Summarize texts in any format

Scholarcy’s ai summarization tool is designed to generate accurate, reliable article summaries..

Our summarizer tool is trained to identify key terms, claims, and findings in academic papers. These insights are turned into digestible Summary Flashcards.

Scroll in the box below to see the magic ⤸

The knowledge extraction and summarization methods we use focus on accuracy. This ensures what you read is factually correct, and can always be traced back to the original source .

What students say

It would normally take me 15mins – 1 hour to skim read the article but with Scholarcy I can do that in 5 minutes.

Scholarcy makes my life easier because it pulls out important information in the summary flashcard.

Scholarcy is clear and easy to navigate. It helps speed up the process of reading and understating papers.

Join over 400,000 people already saving time.

From a to z with scholarcy, generate flashcard summaries. discover more aha moments. get to point quicker..

Understand complex research. Jump between key concepts and sections.   Highlight text. Take notes.

Build a library of knowledge. Recall important info with ease. Organize, search, sort, edit.

Bring it all together. Export Flashcards in a range of formats. Transfer Flashcards into other apps.

Apply what you’ve learned. Compile your highlights, notes, references. Write that magnum opus 🤌

Go beyond summaries

Get unlimited summaries, advanced research and analysis features, and your own personalised collection with Scholarcy Library!

With Scholarcy Library you can import unlimited documents and generate summaries for all your course materials or collection of research papers.

Scholarcy Library offers additional features including access to millions of academic research papers, customizable summaries, direct import from Zotero and more.

Scholarcy lets you build and organise your summaries into a handy library that you can access from anywhere. Export from a range of options, including one-click bibliographies and even a literature matrix.

Compare plans

Summarize 3 articles a day with our free summarizer tool, or upgrade to
Scholarcy Library to generate and save unlimited article summaries.

Import a range of file formats

Export flashcards (one at a time)

Everything in Free

Unlimited summarization

Generate enhanced summaries

Save your flashcards

Take notes, highlight and edit text

Organize flashcards into collections

Frequently Asked Questions

How do i use scholarcy, what if i’m having issues importing files, can scholarcy generate a plain language summary of the article, can scholarcy process any size document, how do i change the summary to get better results, what if i upload a paywalled article to scholarcy, is it violating copyright laws.

Research Guides

Gould library, reading well and taking research notes.

• How to read for college
• How to take research notes
• How to use sources in your writing
• Tools for note taking and annotations
• Mobile apps for notes and annotations
• Assistive technology
• How to cite your sources

Be Prepared: Keep track of which notes are direct quotes, which are summary, and which are your own thoughts. For example, enclose direct quotes in quotation marks, and enclose your own thoughts in brackets. That way you'll never be confused when you're writing.

Be Clear: Make sure you have noted the source and page number!

Be Organized: Keep your notes organized but in a single place so that you can refer back to notes about other readings at the same time.

Be Consistent: You'll want to find specific notes later, and one way to do that is to be consistent in the way you describe things. If you use consistent terms or tags or keywords, you'll be able to find your way back more easily.

Recording what you find

Take full notes

Whether you take notes on cards, in a notebook, or on the computer, it's vital to record information accurately and completely. Otherwise, you won't be able to trust your own notes. Most importantly, distinguish between (1) direct quotation; (2) paraphrases and summaries of the text; and (3) your own thoughts. On a computer, you have many options for making these distinctions, such as parentheses, brackets, italic or bold text, etc.

Know when to quote, paraphrase, and summarize

• Summarize when you only need to remember the main point of the passage, chapter, etc.
• Paraphrase when you are able to able to clearly state a source's point or meaning in your own words.
• Quote exactly when you need the author's exact words or authority as evidience to back up your claim. You may also want to be sure and use the author's exact wording, either because they stated their point so well, or because you want to refute that point and need to demonstrate you aren't misrepresenting the author's words.

Get the context right

Don't just record the author's words or ideas; be sure and capture the context and meaning that surrounds those ideas as well. It can be easy to take a short quote from an author that completely misrepresents his or her actual intentions if you fail to take the context into account. You should also be sure to note when the author is paraphrasing or summarizing another author's point of view--don't accidentally represent those ideas as the ideas of the author.

Example of reading notes

Here is an example of reading notes taken in Evernote, with citation and page numbers noted as well as quotation marks for direct quotes and brackets around the reader's own thoughts.

• << Previous: How to read for college
• Next: How to use sources in your writing >>
• Last Updated: Aug 21, 2024 4:27 PM
• URL: https://gouldguides.carleton.edu/activereading

Questions? Contact [email protected]

Powered by Springshare.

JavaScript seems to be disabled in your browser. For the best experience on our site, be sure to turn on Javascript in your browser.

• Create an Account
• Before You Submit: Categories & Lengths

Categories & Lengths

It is absolutely essential that authors read several of the most recent issues of MISQ to help them determine under which category their research falls. This will also help authors understand the quality expected from submissions. It serves neither authors nor the review team if a manuscript is submitted prematurely. 

The MIS Quarterly reviews and accepts papers that fall into one of the following six categories:

• 1. Research Article
• 2. Research Note
• 3. Methods Article
• 4. Research Commentary
• 5. Theory and Review Article
• 6. Issues and Opinions

This category provides an opportunity for authors to:

• Make a contribution that is sufficiently original and significant so as to warrant a full-length article wherein the authors develop and present their arguments, solutions, and evidence.
• Ground their work in theory, whether it is a new theory being advanced and tested or testing an existing theory. In a Research Article, authors may also be refining or challenging theories.
• Expand our understanding of digital phenomena and the role information systems have in solving high-impact business and societal problems.
• Present evidence that supports the validity of their claims.

Most submissions to and most papers published in the MIS Quarterly are Research Articles. Authors who are developing new theories but do not test that theory in the current submission should categorize their article as a Theory and Review Article . See below for a description of this category.

This category provides a forum for a wide variety of concise research contributions.  Some examples of possible subject matter include:

• Empirical contributions that relate to topics that appear frequently in the MIS Quarterly and other top journals.
• Theoretical insights from the analysis of rich data on phenomena/problems that can trigger the development of theory.
• Discussions around an important methodological issue (or issues) associated with a published article. The connections between a Note’s content and earlier published article(s) must be clearly defined. Notes may arouse controversy and encourage dialogue on an important methodological issue.

Research Notes are typically half the length of a Research Article. A Research Note can also be thought of as a briefer form of a Research Article because it carries a distinct contribution while presenting the research in a more succinct format.

This category provides an opportunity for authors to address methodological issues and propose innovative methods for studying information systems. It is crucial to clearly present ideas to the readership as to introduce perspectives about how researchers should conduct research. A Methods Article may or may not provide empirical evidence, such as simulations, depending on the nature of the topic and the level of evidence required for that particular method. A Methods Article whose impact spans beyond the Information Systems discipline are welcome.

For this category, senior scholars are invited by the EIC to discuss a research stream or methodological approach and offer insight as to how the field should advance. Highlighting seminal or key works that show how the topic has evolved is appropriate. Research Commentaries conclude with a set of research questions that are worth exploring in order to address unanswered questions.

This category is for conceptual articles that develop novel theories and generate theoretical insights that advance the study and practice of information systems design, development, management, use, and consequences. Consistent with the MIS Quarterly‘s broad strategic positioning, the journal is receptive to different types of IS theories (for a discussion of different types of IS theories, see Gregor, S., The Nature of Theory in Information Systems MIS Quarterly (30:3), September 2006). It is also receptive to articles from a wide range of philosophical foundations and disciplinary orientations, including articles that merge siloed theoretical perspectives and are constructively critical of established theory and practice.

Articles in this category can be one of two types:

Theory-Generative Research Synthesis: Comprehensive review and synthesis of previously published research (around a theory, phenomenon, or concept) is done to generate theoretical insights and implications. These articles (1) act as repositories for the accumulated knowledge on important topics within the information systems field, and (2) clearly delineate the directions for future research that emerge from the literature synthesis.

Theory Development: Grounding in theory and/or practice is used to develop new IS theory. In contrast to theory-generative research synthesis, these articles do not engage in comprehensive review and synthesis of the literature (around a theory, phenomenon, or concept) to generate theoretical advances. Instead, they develop new IS theory through approaches such as:

• Conceiving new constructs and relationships pertaining to a phenomenon, problem, or solution.
• Drawing on a novel theoretical lens and elaborating it given the distinctive characteristics of the phenomenon, problem, or solution.
• Integrating multiple theoretical perspectives into a cohesive new IS theory (including integrative, inter- and intra-disciplinary theories).
• Falsifying assumptions and refining existing theories given the characteristics of the phenomena, problem, or solution.
• Challenging existing and advancing new philosophical foundations.

While preparing their manuscript, authors are invited to read prior Theory and Review articles published in MIS Quarterly as well as the following editorials:

• Rivard, S. 2014. The Ions of Theory Construction MIS Quarterly (38:2), pp. iii-xiii.
• Webster, J., and Watson, R. 2002. Analyzing the Past to Prepare for the Future: Writing a Literature Review MIS Quarterly (26:2), pp. xiii-xxiii.
• Zmud, R. W. 1998. Editor’s Comments MIS Quarterly (22:2), June.

This category provides a forum for well-developed and well-articulated position statements concerning emerging, paradoxical, or controversial research issues. An Issues and Opinions article may be described as rigorously argued and/or relying on scholarly evidence. Issues and Opinions submissions should open new areas of discourse, close stale areas, and/or offer fresh views on research topics of importance to the discipline. An Issues and Opinions article should:

• Identify the issue(s) in terms that are accessible.
• Provide appropriate conceptual frameworks for the issue.
• Offer opinions and supportive arguments.
• Describe the implications of these opinions to research, practice, and/or education.
• Include supporting empirical evidence, when appropriate.

Scientometric papers will be considered, but they must yield a large theoretical contribution in our Research Articles. If a scientometric study addresses valuable professional concerns, it could find a home in the Issues and Opinions section.

See the Category Lengths section below for manuscript length requirements for each of the described categories.

Category Lengths

MIS Quarterly has requirements for the maximum total length of an article. MISQ follows these requirements in order to maintain an effective and efficient editorial process that benefits authors, reviewers, and readers of the journal.

The maximum total length requirements include tables, figures, references, and appendices. It is the total length of the article that will be reviewed.

Please follow the guidelines below on maximum total length of an article, including tables, figures, references, and appendices:

• Research Articles : 55 pages
• Research Note : 30 pages
• Method Articles: 55 pages
• Research Commentary : 30 pages
• Theory-Generative Literature Synthesis: 65 pages
• Theory Development : 55 pages For the difference between these types, please refer to the Categories section.
• Issues and Opinions : 30 pages

Submissions that exceed the maximum total lengths of their respective category will either be returned to authors for shortening before review or desk-rejected. The maximum total length must be adhered to in all revised versions.

Content we consider

Open access, data availability policy.

• Article-processing charges

Indexing services

Peer-review policy, collections and special issues, editorial policies, appeals and complaints, citing articles in bmc research notes, benefits of publishing with bmc, aims and scope.

BMC Research Notes is an open access journal publishing peer-reviewed contributions from across all scientific and clinical disciplines, including intriguing initial observations, updates to previous work and established methods, valid negative results, and scientific data sets and descriptions. We are committed to making it easier to find, cite and share your short reports by providing an inclusive forum for valuable data and research observations.

BMC Research Notes does not make editorial decisions on the basis of the interest of a study or its likely impact. Studies must be scientifically valid; for research articles this includes a scientifically sound research question, the use of suitable methods and analysis, and following community-agreed standards relevant to the research field.

• Health sciences and medicine
• Biology and life sciences
• Physical sciences and engineering
• Scientific community

Health science contributions can cover 

• Allergy and immunology
• Brain and nervous system
• Health services research
• Infectious disease
• Internal medicine
• Mental health
• Public health

Life sciences submissions are welcome from 

• Animal biology and zoology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics
• Genomics and genetics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and cell biology
• Plant biology
• Structural biology

Physical science content may cover

• Computer science and informatics
• Earth and environmental sciences
• Engineering
• Material sciences

Scientific community covers aspects related to 

• Data publishing
• Education (medical and scientific)
• Research methodology

All articles published by BMC Research Notes are made freely and permanently accessible online immediately upon publication, without subscription charges or registration barriers. Further information about open access can be found here .

As authors of articles published in BMC Research Notes you are the copyright holders of your article and have granted to any third party, in advance and in perpetuity, the right to use, reproduce or disseminate your article, according to the BMC license agreement .

For those of you who are US government employees or are prevented from being copyright holders for similar reasons, BMC can accommodate non-standard copyright lines. Please contact us if further information is needed.

BMC Research Notes follows the policies of the BMC journals , unless otherwise noted below and are designed to support our commitment to open data sharing.

Availability of datasets Where a widely established research community expectation for data archiving in public repositories exists, submission to a community-endorsed, public repository is mandatory. A list of data where deposition is required, can be found on the Editorial Policies Page . 

BMC Research Notes strongly encourages that all datasets on which the conclusions of the paper rely should be available to readers. We encourage authors to ensure that their datasets are either deposited in publicly available repositories (where available and appropriate) or presented in the main manuscript or additional supporting files whenever possible. If a dataset is not able to be deposited in any of the above repositories due to legal guidelines or ethical reasons, this must be clearly stated in the “Availability of Data and Materials” section.

Data citation BMC endorses the Force 11 Data Citation Principles and requires that all publicly available datasets be fully referenced in the reference list with an accession number or unique identifier such as a digital object identifier (DOI).

Authors are required to formally cite any datasets stored in external repositories that are mentioned within their manuscript, including the main datasets that are the focus of the submission, as well as any other datasets that have been used in the work. For previously published datasets, we ask authors to cite both the related research articles and the datasets themselves. All methods, software, and code developed for the manuscript should include a citation on the reference list. 

All Springer Nature journals, including BMC Research Notes , are participants in the Initiative for Open Citations . As such, data citations are included in full in the formal reference list, exported to Crossref and are openly available.

An author list and title for the dataset should be included in the data citation, and should reflect the author(s) and dataset title recorded at the repository. If author or title is not recorded by the repository, these should not be included in the data citation. The name of the data-hosting repository, URL to the dataset and year the data were made available are required for all data citations. For DOI-based (e.g. figshare or Dryad) repositories the DOI URL should be used. For repositories using accessions (e.g. SRA or GEO) an identifiers.org URL should be used where available. Please refer to the following examples of data citation for guidance:

• Zhang, Q-L., Chen, J-Y., Lin, L-B., Wang, F., Guo, J., Deng, X-Y. Characterization of ladybird Henosepilachna vigintioctopunctata transcriptomes across various life stages. figshare https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.c.4064768.v3 (2018).
• NCBI Sequence Read Archive https://identifiers.org/ncbi/insdc.sra:SRP121625 (2017).
• Barbosa, P., Usie, A. and Ramos, A. M. Quercus suber isolate HL8, whole genome shotgun sequencing project. GenBank https://identifiers.org/ncbi/insdc:PKMF00000000 (2018).
• DNA Data Bank of Japan https://trace.ddbj.nig.ac.jp/DRASearch/submission?acc=DRA004814 (2016).

Availability of computer code and software Authors must make available upon request, to editors and reviewers, any previously unreported custom computer code or algorithm used to generate the data presented in the manuscript. If published, the software application/tool should be readily available to any scientist wishing to use it for non-commercial purposes, without restrictions (such as the need for a material transfer agreement). If the implementation is not made freely available, then the manuscript should focus clearly on the development of the underlying method and not discuss the tool in any detail.

A statement describing how software or custom code can be accessed must be included in the Declaration section “Availability of Data and Materials". License information for the software or method should also be stated clearly in the “Availability of Data and Materials section” and on the repository site.

This section should include a link to the most recent version of your software or code (e.g. GitHub or Sourceforge or Code Ocean) as well as a link to the archived version referenced in the manuscript. The software or code should be archived in an appropriate repository with a DOI or other unique identifier. For software in GitHub, we recommend using Zenodo . 

Code with an assigned DOI must be formally cited and listed in the References section of the manuscript.

Availability of research materials BMC Research Notes follows the BMC editorial policies for the sharing of research materials. 

Submission of a manuscript to a BMC journal implies that materials described in the manuscript, including all relevant raw data, will be freely available to any scientist wishing to use them for non-commercial purposes. It is acceptable to request reasonable payment to cover costs of distribution and reagents may be made available via commercial or non-commercial third party providers. Any restrictions on materials availability, including if materials are to be distributed by a for-profit company, must be clearly stated in the paper. As per our policy on authorship responsibilities, it is expected that the corresponding author (or relevant designated authors) will be responsible for materials availability unless otherwise stated. 

Study pre-registration BMC Research Notes encourages study pre-registration and pre-registration of analysis plans in public repositories; details of pre-registration should be provided in the manuscript.

Replication studies BMC Research Notes ​​​​​​​ welcomes submission of replication studies that provide new insights into previously published results and will evaluate these submissions with the same editorial standards we apply to other submissions.

Standards of reporting BMC Research Notes ​​​​​​​  advocates complete and transparent reporting of research and follows the BMC editorial policies on standards of reporting. Additional information is available through the journal’s submission guidelines .

Helpful resources for sharing your research data We are committed to supporting researchers in sharing their research data, and getting the credit they deserve. Here are some useful resources to help:

• Get free advice from our research data help desk
• Find a recommended repository for your data
• Publish your data in BMC Genomic Data (genomic, transcriptomic and high-throughput genotype data) or in BMC Research Notes (data from across all natural and clinical sciences)

Article processing charges (APC)

Authors who publish open access in BMC Research Notes are required to pay an article processing charge (APC). The APC price will be determined from the date on which the article is accepted for publication.

The current APC, subject to VAT or local taxes where applicable, is: £1240.00/$1790.00/€1490.00*

*This journal is part of Springer Nature’s country-tiered  APC pricing pilot. Find out more about the APC applicable to your country.

Visit our open access support portal and our Journal Pricing FAQs for further information.

Open access funding

Visit Springer Nature’s open access funding & support services for information about research funders and institutions that provide funding for APCs.

Springer Nature offers agreements that enable institutions to cover open access publishing costs. Learn more about our open access agreements to check your eligibility and discover whether this journal is included.

Requests for APC waivers and discounts from authors will be considered on a case-by-case basis, and may be granted in cases of financial need (see our open access policies for journals for more information). All applications for discretionary APC waivers and discounts should be made at the point of manuscript submission; requests made during the review process or after acceptance are unable to be considered.

All articles published in BMC Research Notes  are included in:

• CAB Abstracts
• Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS)
• Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) - GoOA
• EBSCO Academic Search
• EBSCO Biomedical Reference Collection
• EBSCO Discovery Service
• EBSCO STM Source
• Emerging Sources Citation Index
• Google Scholar
• Norwegian Register for Scientific Journals and Series
• OCLC WorldCat Discovery Service
• Pathway Studio
• ProQuest-ExLibris Primo
• ProQuest-ExLibris Summon
• PubMedCentral
• TD Net Discovery Service
• UGC-CARE List (India)
• Zoological Record

The full text of all articles is deposited in digital archives around the world to guarantee long-term digital preservation. You can also access all articles published by BioMed Central on SpringerLink .

We are working closely with relevant indexing services including Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics) to ensure that articles published in BMC Research Notes will be available in their databases when appropriate.

Peer-review is the system used to assess the quality of a manuscript before it is published. Independent researchers in the relevant research area assess submitted manuscripts for originality, validity and significance to help editors determine whether the manuscript should be published in their journal. You can read more about the peer-review process here .

In cases where the journal is unable to find sufficient peer reviewers, the services of a publishing partner, American Journal Experts (AJE), may be used to identify suitable reviewers and provide reports to avoid further delays for authors. Reviewers recruited by AJE are paid a small honorarium for completing the review within a specified timeframe. Honoraria are paid regardless of the reviewer recommendation. In cases where reports have been obtained by AJE, the peer review reports will be unsigned unless the reviewer opts in to sign the report.

BMC Research Notes operates a transparent peer-review system. This means that we will publish all reviewer reports along with the accepted articles but the signing of reviewer reports will be optional . That is, reviewers will be able to choose to remain anonymous if they wish or they can choose to sign the report if they want their name to be publicly associated with it.

Manuscripts submitted to BMC Research Notes are assessed by our Editors and/or peer reviewers. All published articles, including Research Notes and Data Notes, are peer-reviewed. Editor(s) are encouraged to make a decision to publish based on one peer review report. Editor(s) are expected to only do so if the peer review report meets the standards set out in the Springer Nature Code of Conduct (section Peer-Review). Overall editorial responsibility for the journal is with the Editor, with Editorial Board Members acting as handling editors.

BMC Research Notes is part of the BMC series which publishes subject-specific journals focused on the needs of individual research communities across all scientific and clinical disciplines. We do not make editorial decisions on the basis of the interest of a study or its likely impact. Studies must be scientifically valid; for research articles this includes a scientifically sound research question, the use of suitable methods and analysis, and following community-agreed standards relevant to the research field.

Specific criteria for other article types can be found in the submission guidelines. 

BMC series - open, inclusive and trusted .

All articles submitted to Collections and Special issues are peer reviewed in line with the journal’s standard peer review policy and are subject to all of the journal’s standard editorial and publishing policies. This includes the journal’s policy on competing interests. The Editors declare no competing interests with the submissions which they have handled through the peer review process. The peer review of any submissions for which the Editors have competing interests is handled by another Editor who has no competing interests.

All manuscripts submitted to BMC Research Notes should adhere to BioMed Central's editorial policies .

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Authors who wish to appeal a rejection or make a complaint should follow the procedure outlined in the BMC Editorial Policies.

Articles in BMC Research Notes should be cited in the same way as articles in a traditional journal. Because articles are not printed, they do not have page numbers; instead, they are given a unique article number.

Article citations follow this format:

Authors: Title. BMC Res Notes [year], [volume number]:[article number].

e.g. Roberts LD, Hassall DG, Winegar DA, Haselden JN, Nicholls AW, Griffin JL: Increased hepatic oxidative metabolism distinguishes the action of Peroxisome Proliferator-Activated Receptor delta from Peroxisome Proliferator-Activated Receptor gamma in the Ob/Ob mouse. BMC Res Notes 2009, 1 :115.

refers to article 115 from Volume 1 of the journal.

High visibility

BMC Research Notes 's open access policy allows maximum visibility of articles published in the journal as they are available to a wide, global audience. 

Speed of publication

BMC Research Notes offers a fast publication schedule whilst maintaining rigorous peer review; all articles must be submitted online, and peer review is managed fully electronically (articles are distributed in PDF form, which is automatically generated from the submitted files). Articles will be published with their final citation after acceptance, in both fully browsable web form, and as a formatted PDF.

Flexibility

Online publication in BMC Research Notes gives you the opportunity to publish large datasets, large numbers of color illustrations and moving pictures, to display data in a form that can be read directly by other software packages so as to allow readers to manipulate the data for themselves, and to create all relevant links (for example, to PubMed , to sequence and other databases, and to other articles).

Promotion and press coverage

Articles published in BMC Research Notes are included in article alerts and regular email updates. Some may be highlighted on BMC Research Notes ’s pages and on the BMC homepage.

In addition, articles published in BMC Research Notes may be promoted by press releases to the general or scientific press. These activities increase the exposure and number of accesses for articles published in BMC Research Notes . A list of articles recently press-released by journals published by BMC is available here .

As an author of an article published in BMC Research Notes you retain the copyright of your article and you are free to reproduce and disseminate your work (for further details, see the BMC license agreement ).

For further information about the advantages of publishing in a journal from BMC, please click here .

Important information

Editorial board

About our article types

For authors

For editorial board members

For reviewers

Annual Journal Metrics

Citation Impact 2023 Journal Impact Factor: 1.6 5-year Journal Impact Factor: N/A Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP): 0.687 SCImago Journal Rank (SJR): 0.486

Speed 2023 Submission to first editorial decision (median days): 13 Submission to acceptance (median days): 191

Usage 2023 Downloads: 4,067,459 Altmetric mentions: 2,370

• More about our metrics
• Follow us on Twitter

BMC Research Notes

ISSN: 1756-0500

• General enquiries: [email protected]

Pardon Our Interruption

As you were browsing something about your browser made us think you were a bot. There are a few reasons this might happen:

• You've disabled JavaScript in your web browser.
• You're a power user moving through this website with super-human speed.
• You've disabled cookies in your web browser.
• A third-party browser plugin, such as Ghostery or NoScript, is preventing JavaScript from running. Additional information is available in this support article .

To regain access, please make sure that cookies and JavaScript are enabled before reloading the page.

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Shopping
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election results
• Google trends
• AP & Elections
• U.S. Open Tennis
• Paralympic Games
• College football
• Auto Racing
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

AP Decision Notes: What to expect in Delaware’s state primaries

FILE - Delaware Gov. John Carney exits Vice President Kamala Harris campaign headquarters, July 22, 2024, in Wilmington, Del., after Harris addressed staff members. (AP Photo/Derik Hamilton, File)

• Copy Link copied

WASHINGTON (AP) — Delaware’s most prominent elected official, President Joe Biden , may have upended the presidential race in July when he dropped his bid for a second term, but it’s the impending departures of two other prominent Democratic officeholders, Gov. John Carney and U.S. Sen. Tom Carper , that are having ripple effects throughout the ballot in Tuesday’s state primaries.

Carney will leave statewide office next year after two terms as governor, two terms as lieutenant governor and three terms as the state’s lone representative to the U.S. House. His departure has set off contested primaries for both the Democratic and Republican nominations.

The Democratic candidates are Lt. Gov. Bethany Hall-Long, New Castle County Executive Matt Meyer and National Wildlife Federation CEO and former state Natural Resources Secretary Collin O’Mara. The Republican candidates are retired police officer Jerry Price, state House Minority Leader Michael Ramone and small business owner Bobby Williamson.

Hall-Long has Carney’s endorsement and is the only candidate in the race to have previously won statewide office. But the two-term lieutenant governor has had a difficult summer after a state-ordered forensic audit of her campaign finances revealed improprieties over an eight-year period.

Emails reviewed by the Associated Press also showed that members of the lieutenant governor’s staff engaged in campaign activity on her behalf during government work hours, which is prohibited by state law. Hall-Long has disputed the findings of the forensic audit, saying the issues identified in the report were the result of minor bookkeeping errors. Nonetheless, Meyer, her primary rival, has called for a federal investigation into the matter.

Carney is barred from running for a third term as governor but will still appear on some ballots in the state as a candidate for mayor of Wilmington, Delaware’s most populous city. His opponent in the Democratic primary is another former statewide officeholder, Velda Jones-Potter, who was appointed state treasurer in 2009 and served about two years before losing her bid for a full term.

Long-Hall is also term-limited as lieutenant governor, and four women have lined up to replace her. State Rep. Sherry Dorsey-Walker, state Sen. Kyle Evans-Gay and state party vice chair Debbie Harrington are running for the Democratic nomination. Former state Rep. Ruth Briggs King is unopposed for the Republican nomination.

Carper’s announcement in 2023 that he would not seek a fifth term created the state’s first open-seat U.S. Senate race since 2010, when U.S. Sen. Chris Coons was elected to the seat Biden had vacated to assume the vice presidency. Democratic U.S. Rep. Lisa Blunt Rochester looks to replace Carper, as does Republican former Walmart executive Eric Hansen. Both are unopposed for their parties’ nominations and will not appear on Tuesday’s ballot.

With Blunt Rochester running to replace Carper in the U.S. Senate , both Democrats and Republicans will hold contested primaries to take over the seat she has held since 2017. Democratic state Sen. Sarah McBride is the best-known and best-funded candidate across both primary fields. She has the backing of Carper, Coons and Rochester, and had $1.7 million in the bank as of the end of June. Her only competitor from either party to disclose any funds raised was Republican Donyale Hall, who reported a campaign war chest of just shy of $7,500. If elected, McBride would become the first openly transgender member of Congress .

Although control of both the U.S. Senate and House may come down to just a small handful of competitive races, the seats in Delaware are expected to remain firmly in the Democratic column. Once a reliable bellwether in presidential races, Delaware has shifted heavily Democratic since the 1990s. Republicans have not won the governorship since 1988, a U.S. Senate seat since 1994 or the U.S. House seat since 2008.

What to know about the 2024 Election

• Today’s news: Follow live updates from the campaign trail from the AP.
• Ground Game: Sign up for AP’s weekly politics newsletter to get it in your inbox every Monday.
• AP’s Role: The Associated Press is the most trusted source of information on election night, with a history of accuracy dating to 1848. Learn more.

About half of Delaware’s 21 state Senate seats and all 41 state House seats are up for election 2024, although only 12 districts will hold contested primaries on Tuesday. Democrats hold about two-to-one majorities in each chamber.

Here’s a look at what to expect on Tuesday:

Primary day

Delaware’s state primaries will be held Tuesday. Polls close at 8 p.m. ET.

What’s on the ballot

The Associated Press will provide vote results and declare winners in contested primaries for governor, lieutenant governor, U.S. House, state Senate, state House, insurance commissioner and mayor of Wilmington.

Who gets to vote

Delaware voters who are registered with a political party may only participate in that party’s primary. Democrats may not vote in the Republican primary or vice versa. Independent or unaffiliated voters may not participate in either primary.

Decision notes

Of Delaware’s three counties, New Castle is by far the largest in population and the most heavily Democratic. In the 2020 presidential election, votes from New Castle made up about 57% of the statewide vote, compared to about 26% for Sussex County and 17% for Kent County.

For Democrats running in a statewide primary, a reasonable path to victory, short of sweeping all three counties, is to win New Castle by enough to offset losses in one or both of the other two counties. That’s the path Democratic state insurance commissioner Trinidad Navarro followed in his 2016 primary victory. In Tuesday’s gubernatorial primary, with both Hall-Long and Meyer claiming New Castle as their political base, there’s a possibility the two will largely split the vote there, leaving Kent and Sussex playing decisive roles. In her 2016 primary for lieutenant governor, Hall-Long narrowly carried New Castle and lost Sussex but still managed to place first with about 30% of the statewide vote when no single candidate was able to consolidate the remaining vote behind them.

For Republicans, it’s possible for a candidate in a multi-candidate field to win a statewide primary while losing New Castle, as long as they post a sizable margin in Sussex County, the state’s Republican stronghold. That’s how Julianne Murray won the 2020 Republican primary for governor.

The AP does not make projections and will declare a winner only when it’s determined there is no scenario that would allow the trailing candidates to close the gap. If a race has not been called, the AP will continue to cover any newsworthy developments, such as candidate concessions or declarations of victory. In doing so, the AP will make clear that it has not yet declared a winner and explain why.

Recounts in Delaware are automatic for state legislative and county races if the vote margin is less than 1,000 votes or 0.5% of the total votes cast for the two candidates. The AP may declare a winner in a race that is eligible for a recount if it can determine the lead is too large for a recount or legal challenge to change the outcome.

What do turnout and advance vote look like

As of Aug. 1, there were about 780,000 registered voters in Delaware. Of those, 45% were Democrats, 26% were Republicans and about 22% were not registered with any party.

In the 2022 primaries, turnout was about 16% of registered voters, according to the Delaware Department of Elections. About 27% of Democratic primary voters and 12% of Republican primary voters cast their ballots before primary day.

As of Thursday, a total of 22,293 ballots had been cast before primary day, about 72% in the Democratic primary and 28% in the Republican primary.

How long does vote-counting usually take?

In the 2022 primaries, the AP first reported results at 8:30 p.m. ET, or 30 minutes after polls closed. The election night tabulation ended at 12:38 a.m. ET with all votes counted.

Are we there yet?

As of Tuesday, there will be 56 days until the November general election.

Follow the AP’s coverage of the 2024 election at https://apnews.com/hub/election-2024 .

Peer Reviewed

GPT-fabricated scientific papers on Google Scholar: Key features, spread, and implications for preempting evidence manipulation

Article metrics.

CrossRef Citations

Altmetric Score

PDF Downloads

Academic journals, archives, and repositories are seeing an increasing number of questionable research papers clearly produced using generative AI. They are often created with widely available, general-purpose AI applications, most likely ChatGPT, and mimic scientific writing. Google Scholar easily locates and lists these questionable papers alongside reputable, quality-controlled research. Our analysis of a selection of questionable GPT-fabricated scientific papers found in Google Scholar shows that many are about applied, often controversial topics susceptible to disinformation: the environment, health, and computing. The resulting enhanced potential for malicious manipulation of society’s evidence base, particularly in politically divisive domains, is a growing concern.

Swedish School of Library and Information Science, University of Borås, Sweden

Department of Arts and Cultural Sciences, Lund University, Sweden

Division of Environmental Communication, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Sweden

Research Questions

• Where are questionable publications produced with generative pre-trained transformers (GPTs) that can be found via Google Scholar published or deposited?
• What are the main characteristics of these publications in relation to predominant subject categories?
• How are these publications spread in the research infrastructure for scholarly communication?
• How is the role of the scholarly communication infrastructure challenged in maintaining public trust in science and evidence through inappropriate use of generative AI?

research note Summary

• A sample of scientific papers with signs of GPT-use found on Google Scholar was retrieved, downloaded, and analyzed using a combination of qualitative coding and descriptive statistics. All papers contained at least one of two common phrases returned by conversational agents that use large language models (LLM) like OpenAI’s ChatGPT. Google Search was then used to determine the extent to which copies of questionable, GPT-fabricated papers were available in various repositories, archives, citation databases, and social media platforms.
• Roughly two-thirds of the retrieved papers were found to have been produced, at least in part, through undisclosed, potentially deceptive use of GPT. The majority (57%) of these questionable papers dealt with policy-relevant subjects (i.e., environment, health, computing), susceptible to influence operations. Most were available in several copies on different domains (e.g., social media, archives, and repositories).
• Two main risks arise from the increasingly common use of GPT to (mass-)produce fake, scientific publications. First, the abundance of fabricated “studies” seeping into all areas of the research infrastructure threatens to overwhelm the scholarly communication system and jeopardize the integrity of the scientific record. A second risk lies in the increased possibility that convincingly scientific-looking content was in fact deceitfully created with AI tools and is also optimized to be retrieved by publicly available academic search engines, particularly Google Scholar. However small, this possibility and awareness of it risks undermining the basis for trust in scientific knowledge and poses serious societal risks.

Implications

The use of ChatGPT to generate text for academic papers has raised concerns about research integrity. Discussion of this phenomenon is ongoing in editorials, commentaries, opinion pieces, and on social media (Bom, 2023; Stokel-Walker, 2024; Thorp, 2023). There are now several lists of papers suspected of GPT misuse, and new papers are constantly being added. 1 See for example Academ-AI, https://www.academ-ai.info/ , and Retraction Watch, https://retractionwatch.com/papers-and-peer-reviews-with-evidence-of-chatgpt-writing/ . While many legitimate uses of GPT for research and academic writing exist (Huang & Tan, 2023; Kitamura, 2023; Lund et al., 2023), its undeclared use—beyond proofreading—has potentially far-reaching implications for both science and society, but especially for their relationship. It, therefore, seems important to extend the discussion to one of the most accessible and well-known intermediaries between science, but also certain types of misinformation, and the public, namely Google Scholar, also in response to the legitimate concerns that the discussion of generative AI and misinformation needs to be more nuanced and empirically substantiated  (Simon et al., 2023).

Google Scholar, https://scholar.google.com , is an easy-to-use academic search engine. It is available for free, and its index is extensive (Gusenbauer & Haddaway, 2020). It is also often touted as a credible source for academic literature and even recommended in library guides, by media and information literacy initiatives, and fact checkers (Tripodi et al., 2023). However, Google Scholar lacks the transparency and adherence to standards that usually characterize citation databases. Instead, Google Scholar uses automated crawlers, like Google’s web search engine (Martín-Martín et al., 2021), and the inclusion criteria are based on primarily technical standards, allowing any individual author—with or without scientific affiliation—to upload papers to be indexed (Google Scholar Help, n.d.). It has been shown that Google Scholar is susceptible to manipulation through citation exploits (Antkare, 2020) and by providing access to fake scientific papers (Dadkhah et al., 2017). A large part of Google Scholar’s index consists of publications from established scientific journals or other forms of quality-controlled, scholarly literature. However, the index also contains a large amount of gray literature, including student papers, working papers, reports, preprint servers, and academic networking sites, as well as material from so-called “questionable” academic journals, including paper mills. The search interface does not offer the possibility to filter the results meaningfully by material type, publication status, or form of quality control, such as limiting the search to peer-reviewed material.

To understand the occurrence of ChatGPT (co-)authored work in Google Scholar’s index, we scraped it for publications, including one of two common ChatGPT responses (see Appendix A) that we encountered on social media and in media reports (DeGeurin, 2024). The results of our descriptive statistical analyses showed that around 62% did not declare the use of GPTs. Most of these GPT-fabricated papers were found in non-indexed journals and working papers, but some cases included research published in mainstream scientific journals and conference proceedings. 2 Indexed journals mean scholarly journals indexed by abstract and citation databases such as Scopus and Web of Science, where the indexation implies journals with high scientific quality. Non-indexed journals are journals that fall outside of this indexation. More than half (57%) of these GPT-fabricated papers concerned policy-relevant subject areas susceptible to influence operations. To avoid increasing the visibility of these publications, we abstained from referencing them in this research note. However, we have made the data available in the Harvard Dataverse repository.

The publications were related to three issue areas—health (14.5%), environment (19.5%) and computing (23%)—with key terms such “healthcare,” “COVID-19,” or “infection”for health-related papers, and “analysis,” “sustainable,” and “global” for environment-related papers. In several cases, the papers had titles that strung together general keywords and buzzwords, thus alluding to very broad and current research. These terms included “biology,” “telehealth,” “climate policy,” “diversity,” and “disrupting,” to name just a few.  While the study’s scope and design did not include a detailed analysis of which parts of the articles included fabricated text, our dataset did contain the surrounding sentences for each occurrence of the suspicious phrases that formed the basis for our search and subsequent selection. Based on that, we can say that the phrases occurred in most sections typically found in scientific publications, including the literature review, methods, conceptual and theoretical frameworks, background, motivation or societal relevance, and even discussion. This was confirmed during the joint coding, where we read and discussed all articles. It became clear that not just the text related to the telltale phrases was created by GPT, but that almost all articles in our sample of questionable articles likely contained traces of GPT-fabricated text everywhere.

Evidence hacking and backfiring effects

Generative pre-trained transformers (GPTs) can be used to produce texts that mimic scientific writing. These texts, when made available online—as we demonstrate—leak into the databases of academic search engines and other parts of the research infrastructure for scholarly communication. This development exacerbates problems that were already present with less sophisticated text generators (Antkare, 2020; Cabanac & Labbé, 2021). Yet, the public release of ChatGPT in 2022, together with the way Google Scholar works, has increased the likelihood of lay people (e.g., media, politicians, patients, students) coming across questionable (or even entirely GPT-fabricated) papers and other problematic research findings. Previous research has emphasized that the ability to determine the value and status of scientific publications for lay people is at stake when misleading articles are passed off as reputable (Haider & Åström, 2017) and that systematic literature reviews risk being compromised (Dadkhah et al., 2017). It has also been highlighted that Google Scholar, in particular, can be and has been exploited for manipulating the evidence base for politically charged issues and to fuel conspiracy narratives (Tripodi et al., 2023). Both concerns are likely to be magnified in the future, increasing the risk of what we suggest calling evidence hacking —the strategic and coordinated malicious manipulation of society’s evidence base.

The authority of quality-controlled research as evidence to support legislation, policy, politics, and other forms of decision-making is undermined by the presence of undeclared GPT-fabricated content in publications professing to be scientific. Due to the large number of archives, repositories, mirror sites, and shadow libraries to which they spread, there is a clear risk that GPT-fabricated, questionable papers will reach audiences even after a possible retraction. There are considerable technical difficulties involved in identifying and tracing computer-fabricated papers (Cabanac & Labbé, 2021; Dadkhah et al., 2023; Jones, 2024), not to mention preventing and curbing their spread and uptake.

However, as the rise of the so-called anti-vaxx movement during the COVID-19 pandemic and the ongoing obstruction and denial of climate change show, retracting erroneous publications often fuels conspiracies and increases the following of these movements rather than stopping them. To illustrate this mechanism, climate deniers frequently question established scientific consensus by pointing to other, supposedly scientific, studies that support their claims. Usually, these are poorly executed, not peer-reviewed, based on obsolete data, or even fraudulent (Dunlap & Brulle, 2020). A similar strategy is successful in the alternative epistemic world of the global anti-vaccination movement (Carrion, 2018) and the persistence of flawed and questionable publications in the scientific record already poses significant problems for health research, policy, and lawmakers, and thus for society as a whole (Littell et al., 2024). Considering that a person’s support for “doing your own research” is associated with increased mistrust in scientific institutions (Chinn & Hasell, 2023), it will be of utmost importance to anticipate and consider such backfiring effects already when designing a technical solution, when suggesting industry or legal regulation, and in the planning of educational measures.

Recommendations

Solutions should be based on simultaneous considerations of technical, educational, and regulatory approaches, as well as incentives, including social ones, across the entire research infrastructure. Paying attention to how these approaches and incentives relate to each other can help identify points and mechanisms for disruption. Recognizing fraudulent academic papers must happen alongside understanding how they reach their audiences and what reasons there might be for some of these papers successfully “sticking around.” A possible way to mitigate some of the risks associated with GPT-fabricated scholarly texts finding their way into academic search engine results would be to provide filtering options for facets such as indexed journals, gray literature, peer-review, and similar on the interface of publicly available academic search engines. Furthermore, evaluation tools for indexed journals 3 Such as LiU Journal CheckUp, https://ep.liu.se/JournalCheckup/default.aspx?lang=eng . could be integrated into the graphical user interfaces and the crawlers of these academic search engines. To enable accountability, it is important that the index (database) of such a search engine is populated according to criteria that are transparent, open to scrutiny, and appropriate to the workings of  science and other forms of academic research. Moreover, considering that Google Scholar has no real competitor, there is a strong case for establishing a freely accessible, non-specialized academic search engine that is not run for commercial reasons but for reasons of public interest. Such measures, together with educational initiatives aimed particularly at policymakers, science communicators, journalists, and other media workers, will be crucial to reducing the possibilities for and effects of malicious manipulation or evidence hacking. It is important not to present this as a technical problem that exists only because of AI text generators but to relate it to the wider concerns in which it is embedded. These range from a largely dysfunctional scholarly publishing system (Haider & Åström, 2017) and academia’s “publish or perish” paradigm to Google’s near-monopoly and ideological battles over the control of information and ultimately knowledge. Any intervention is likely to have systemic effects; these effects need to be considered and assessed in advance and, ideally, followed up on.

Our study focused on a selection of papers that were easily recognizable as fraudulent. We used this relatively small sample as a magnifying glass to examine, delineate, and understand a problem that goes beyond the scope of the sample itself, which however points towards larger concerns that require further investigation. The work of ongoing whistleblowing initiatives 4 Such as Academ-AI, https://www.academ-ai.info/ , and Retraction Watch, https://retractionwatch.com/papers-and-peer-reviews-with-evidence-of-chatgpt-writing/ . , recent media reports of journal closures (Subbaraman, 2024), or GPT-related changes in word use and writing style (Cabanac et al., 2021; Stokel-Walker, 2024) suggest that we only see the tip of the iceberg. There are already more sophisticated cases (Dadkhah et al., 2023) as well as cases involving fabricated images (Gu et al., 2022). Our analysis shows that questionable and potentially manipulative GPT-fabricated papers permeate the research infrastructure and are likely to become a widespread phenomenon. Our findings underline that the risk of fake scientific papers being used to maliciously manipulate evidence (see Dadkhah et al., 2017) must be taken seriously. Manipulation may involve undeclared automatic summaries of texts, inclusion in literature reviews, explicit scientific claims, or the concealment of errors in studies so that they are difficult to detect in peer review. However, the mere possibility of these things happening is a significant risk in its own right that can be strategically exploited and will have ramifications for trust in and perception of science. Society’s methods of evaluating sources and the foundations of media and information literacy are under threat and public trust in science is at risk of further erosion, with far-reaching consequences for society in dealing with information disorders. To address this multifaceted problem, we first need to understand why it exists and proliferates.

Finding 1: 139 GPT-fabricated, questionable papers were found and listed as regular results on the Google Scholar results page. Non-indexed journals dominate.

Most questionable papers we found were in non-indexed journals or were working papers, but we did also find some in established journals, publications, conferences, and repositories. We found a total of 139 papers with a suspected deceptive use of ChatGPT or similar LLM applications (see Table 1). Out of these, 19 were in indexed journals, 89 were in non-indexed journals, 19 were student papers found in university databases, and 12 were working papers (mostly in preprint databases). Table 1 divides these papers into categories. Health and environment papers made up around 34% (47) of the sample. Of these, 66% were present in non-indexed journals.

Finding 2: GPT-fabricated, questionable papers are disseminated online, permeating the research infrastructure for scholarly communication, often in multiple copies. Applied topics with practical implications dominate.

The 20 papers concerning health-related issues are distributed across 20 unique domains, accounting for 46 URLs. The 27 papers dealing with environmental issues can be found across 26 unique domains, accounting for 56 URLs.  Most of the identified papers exist in multiple copies and have already spread to several archives, repositories, and social media. It would be difficult, or impossible, to remove them from the scientific record.

As apparent from Table 2, GPT-fabricated, questionable papers are seeping into most parts of the online research infrastructure for scholarly communication. Platforms on which identified papers have appeared include ResearchGate, ORCiD, Journal of Population Therapeutics and Clinical Pharmacology (JPTCP), Easychair, Frontiers, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineer (IEEE), and X/Twitter. Thus, even if they are retracted from their original source, it will prove very difficult to track, remove, or even just mark them up on other platforms. Moreover, unless regulated, Google Scholar will enable their continued and most likely unlabeled discoverability.

A word rain visualization (Centre for Digital Humanities Uppsala, 2023), which combines word prominences through TF-IDF 5 Term frequency–inverse document frequency , a method for measuring the significance of a word in a document compared to its frequency across all documents in a collection. scores with semantic similarity of the full texts of our sample of GPT-generated articles that fall into the “Environment” and “Health” categories, reflects the two categories in question. However, as can be seen in Figure 1, it also reveals overlap and sub-areas. The y-axis shows word prominences through word positions and font sizes, while the x-axis indicates semantic similarity. In addition to a certain amount of overlap, this reveals sub-areas, which are best described as two distinct events within the word rain. The event on the left bundles terms related to the development and management of health and healthcare with “challenges,” “impact,” and “potential of artificial intelligence”emerging as semantically related terms. Terms related to research infrastructures, environmental, epistemic, and technological concepts are arranged further down in the same event (e.g., “system,” “climate,” “understanding,” “knowledge,” “learning,” “education,” “sustainable”). A second distinct event further to the right bundles terms associated with fish farming and aquatic medicinal plants, highlighting the presence of an aquaculture cluster.  Here, the prominence of groups of terms such as “used,” “model,” “-based,” and “traditional” suggests the presence of applied research on these topics. The two events making up the word rain visualization, are linked by a less dominant but overlapping cluster of terms related to “energy” and “water.”

The bar chart of the terms in the paper subset (see Figure 2) complements the word rain visualization by depicting the most prominent terms in the full texts along the y-axis. Here, word prominences across health and environment papers are arranged descendingly, where values outside parentheses are TF-IDF values (relative frequencies) and values inside parentheses are raw term frequencies (absolute frequencies).

Finding 3: Google Scholar presents results from quality-controlled and non-controlled citation databases on the same interface, providing unfiltered access to GPT-fabricated questionable papers.

Google Scholar’s central position in the publicly accessible scholarly communication infrastructure, as well as its lack of standards, transparency, and accountability in terms of inclusion criteria, has potentially serious implications for public trust in science. This is likely to exacerbate the already-known potential to exploit Google Scholar for evidence hacking (Tripodi et al., 2023) and will have implications for any attempts to retract or remove fraudulent papers from their original publication venues. Any solution must consider the entirety of the research infrastructure for scholarly communication and the interplay of different actors, interests, and incentives.

We searched and scraped Google Scholar using the Python library Scholarly (Cholewiak et al., 2023) for papers that included specific phrases known to be common responses from ChatGPT and similar applications with the same underlying model (GPT3.5 or GPT4): “as of my last knowledge update” and/or “I don’t have access to real-time data” (see Appendix A). This facilitated the identification of papers that likely used generative AI to produce text, resulting in 227 retrieved papers. The papers’ bibliographic information was automatically added to a spreadsheet and downloaded into Zotero. 6 An open-source reference manager, https://zotero.org .

We employed multiple coding (Barbour, 2001) to classify the papers based on their content. First, we jointly assessed whether the paper was suspected of fraudulent use of ChatGPT (or similar) based on how the text was integrated into the papers and whether the paper was presented as original research output or the AI tool’s role was acknowledged. Second, in analyzing the content of the papers, we continued the multiple coding by classifying the fraudulent papers into four categories identified during an initial round of analysis—health, environment, computing, and others—and then determining which subjects were most affected by this issue (see Table 1). Out of the 227 retrieved papers, 88 papers were written with legitimate and/or declared use of GPTs (i.e., false positives, which were excluded from further analysis), and 139 papers were written with undeclared and/or fraudulent use (i.e., true positives, which were included in further analysis). The multiple coding was conducted jointly by all authors of the present article, who collaboratively coded and cross-checked each other’s interpretation of the data simultaneously in a shared spreadsheet file. This was done to single out coding discrepancies and settle coding disagreements, which in turn ensured methodological thoroughness and analytical consensus (see Barbour, 2001). Redoing the category coding later based on our established coding schedule, we achieved an intercoder reliability (Cohen’s kappa) of 0.806 after eradicating obvious differences.

The ranking algorithm of Google Scholar prioritizes highly cited and older publications (Martín-Martín et al., 2016). Therefore, the position of the articles on the search engine results pages was not particularly informative, considering the relatively small number of results in combination with the recency of the publications. Only the query “as of my last knowledge update” had more than two search engine result pages. On those, questionable articles with undeclared use of GPTs were evenly distributed across all result pages (min: 4, max: 9, mode: 8), with the proportion of undeclared use being slightly higher on average on later search result pages.

To understand how the papers making fraudulent use of generative AI were disseminated online, we programmatically searched for the paper titles (with exact string matching) in Google Search from our local IP address (see Appendix B) using the googlesearch – python library(Vikramaditya, 2020). We manually verified each search result to filter out false positives—results that were not related to the paper—and then compiled the most prominent URLs by field. This enabled the identification of other platforms through which the papers had been spread. We did not, however, investigate whether copies had spread into SciHub or other shadow libraries, or if they were referenced in Wikipedia.

We used descriptive statistics to count the prevalence of the number of GPT-fabricated papers across topics and venues and top domains by subject. The pandas software library for the Python programming language (The pandas development team, 2024) was used for this part of the analysis. Based on the multiple coding, paper occurrences were counted in relation to their categories, divided into indexed journals, non-indexed journals, student papers, and working papers. The schemes, subdomains, and subdirectories of the URL strings were filtered out while top-level domains and second-level domains were kept, which led to normalizing domain names. This, in turn, allowed the counting of domain frequencies in the environment and health categories. To distinguish word prominences and meanings in the environment and health-related GPT-fabricated questionable papers, a semantically-aware word cloud visualization was produced through the use of a word rain (Centre for Digital Humanities Uppsala, 2023) for full-text versions of the papers. Font size and y-axis positions indicate word prominences through TF-IDF scores for the environment and health papers (also visualized in a separate bar chart with raw term frequencies in parentheses), and words are positioned along the x-axis to reflect semantic similarity (Skeppstedt et al., 2024), with an English Word2vec skip gram model space (Fares et al., 2017). An English stop word list was used, along with a manually produced list including terms such as “https,” “volume,” or “years.”

• Artificial Intelligence
• / Search engines

Cite this Essay

Haider, J., Söderström, K. R., Ekström, B., & Rödl, M. (2024). GPT-fabricated scientific papers on Google Scholar: Key features, spread, and implications for preempting evidence manipulation. Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) Misinformation Review . https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-156

• / Appendix B

Bibliography

Antkare, I. (2020). Ike Antkare, his publications, and those of his disciples. In M. Biagioli & A. Lippman (Eds.), Gaming the metrics (pp. 177–200). The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11087.003.0018

Barbour, R. S. (2001). Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: A case of the tail wagging the dog? BMJ , 322 (7294), 1115–1117. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.322.7294.1115

Bom, H.-S. H. (2023). Exploring the opportunities and challenges of ChatGPT in academic writing: A roundtable discussion. Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging , 57 (4), 165–167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13139-023-00809-2

Cabanac, G., & Labbé, C. (2021). Prevalence of nonsensical algorithmically generated papers in the scientific literature. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology , 72 (12), 1461–1476. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24495

Cabanac, G., Labbé, C., & Magazinov, A. (2021). Tortured phrases: A dubious writing style emerging in science. Evidence of critical issues affecting established journals . arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2107.06751

Carrion, M. L. (2018). “You need to do your research”: Vaccines, contestable science, and maternal epistemology. Public Understanding of Science , 27 (3), 310–324. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662517728024

Centre for Digital Humanities Uppsala (2023). CDHUppsala/word-rain [Computer software]. https://github.com/CDHUppsala/word-rain

Chinn, S., & Hasell, A. (2023). Support for “doing your own research” is associated with COVID-19 misperceptions and scientific mistrust. Harvard Kennedy School (HSK) Misinformation Review, 4 (3). https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-117

Cholewiak, S. A., Ipeirotis, P., Silva, V., & Kannawadi, A. (2023). SCHOLARLY: Simple access to Google Scholar authors and citation using Python (1.5.0) [Computer software]. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5764801

Dadkhah, M., Lagzian, M., & Borchardt, G. (2017). Questionable papers in citation databases as an issue for literature review. Journal of Cell Communication and Signaling , 11 (2), 181–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12079-016-0370-6

Dadkhah, M., Oermann, M. H., Hegedüs, M., Raman, R., & Dávid, L. D. (2023). Detection of fake papers in the era of artificial intelligence. Diagnosis , 10 (4), 390–397. https://doi.org/10.1515/dx-2023-0090

DeGeurin, M. (2024, March 19). AI-generated nonsense is leaking into scientific journals. Popular Science. https://www.popsci.com/technology/ai-generated-text-scientific-journals/

Dunlap, R. E., & Brulle, R. J. (2020). Sources and amplifiers of climate change denial. In D.C. Holmes & L. M. Richardson (Eds.), Research handbook on communicating climate change (pp. 49–61). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781789900408.00013

Fares, M., Kutuzov, A., Oepen, S., & Velldal, E. (2017). Word vectors, reuse, and replicability: Towards a community repository of large-text resources. In J. Tiedemann & N. Tahmasebi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Nordic Conference on Computational Linguistics (pp. 271–276). Association for Computational Linguistics. https://aclanthology.org/W17-0237

Google Scholar Help. (n.d.). Inclusion guidelines for webmasters . https://scholar.google.com/intl/en/scholar/inclusion.html

Gu, J., Wang, X., Li, C., Zhao, J., Fu, W., Liang, G., & Qiu, J. (2022). AI-enabled image fraud in scientific publications. Patterns , 3 (7), 100511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2022.100511

Gusenbauer, M., & Haddaway, N. R. (2020). Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta-analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources. Research Synthesis Methods , 11 (2), 181–217.   https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1378

Haider, J., & Åström, F. (2017). Dimensions of trust in scholarly communication: Problematizing peer review in the aftermath of John Bohannon’s “Sting” in science. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology , 68 (2), 450–467. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23669

Huang, J., & Tan, M. (2023). The role of ChatGPT in scientific communication: Writing better scientific review articles. American Journal of Cancer Research , 13 (4), 1148–1154. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10164801/

Jones, N. (2024). How journals are fighting back against a wave of questionable images. Nature , 626 (8000), 697–698. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00372-6

Kitamura, F. C. (2023). ChatGPT is shaping the future of medical writing but still requires human judgment. Radiology , 307 (2), e230171. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.230171

Littell, J. H., Abel, K. M., Biggs, M. A., Blum, R. W., Foster, D. G., Haddad, L. B., Major, B., Munk-Olsen, T., Polis, C. B., Robinson, G. E., Rocca, C. H., Russo, N. F., Steinberg, J. R., Stewart, D. E., Stotland, N. L., Upadhyay, U. D., & Ditzhuijzen, J. van. (2024). Correcting the scientific record on abortion and mental health outcomes. BMJ , 384 , e076518. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2023-076518

Lund, B. D., Wang, T., Mannuru, N. R., Nie, B., Shimray, S., & Wang, Z. (2023). ChatGPT and a new academic reality: Artificial Intelligence-written research papers and the ethics of the large language models in scholarly publishing. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 74 (5), 570–581. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24750

Martín-Martín, A., Orduna-Malea, E., Ayllón, J. M., & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2016). Back to the past: On the shoulders of an academic search engine giant. Scientometrics , 107 , 1477–1487. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1917-2

Martín-Martín, A., Thelwall, M., Orduna-Malea, E., & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2021). Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: A multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations. Scientometrics , 126 (1), 871–906. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03690-4

Simon, F. M., Altay, S., & Mercier, H. (2023). Misinformation reloaded? Fears about the impact of generative AI on misinformation are overblown. Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) Misinformation Review, 4 (5). https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-127

Skeppstedt, M., Ahltorp, M., Kucher, K., & Lindström, M. (2024). From word clouds to Word Rain: Revisiting the classic word cloud to visualize climate change texts. Information Visualization , 23 (3), 217–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/14738716241236188

Swedish Research Council. (2017). Good research practice. Vetenskapsrådet.

Stokel-Walker, C. (2024, May 1.). AI Chatbots Have Thoroughly Infiltrated Scientific Publishing . Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/chatbots-have-thoroughly-infiltrated-scientific-publishing/

Subbaraman, N. (2024, May 14). Flood of fake science forces multiple journal closures: Wiley to shutter 19 more journals, some tainted by fraud. The Wall Street Journal . https://www.wsj.com/science/academic-studies-research-paper-mills-journals-publishing-f5a3d4bc

The pandas development team. (2024). pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas (v2.2.2) [Computer software]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10957263

Thorp, H. H. (2023). ChatGPT is fun, but not an author. Science , 379 (6630), 313–313. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adg7879

Tripodi, F. B., Garcia, L. C., & Marwick, A. E. (2023). ‘Do your own research’: Affordance activation and disinformation spread. Information, Communication & Society , 27 (6), 1212–1228. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2023.2245869

Vikramaditya, N. (2020). Nv7-GitHub/googlesearch [Computer software]. https://github.com/Nv7-GitHub/googlesearch

This research has been supported by Mistra, the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research, through the research program Mistra Environmental Communication (Haider, Ekström, Rödl) and the Marcus and Amalia Wallenberg Foundation [2020.0004] (Söderström).

Competing Interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

The research described in this article was carried out under Swedish legislation. According to the relevant EU and Swedish legislation (2003:460) on the ethical review of research involving humans (“Ethical Review Act”), the research reported on here is not subject to authorization by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority (“etikprövningsmyndigheten”) (SRC, 2017).

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that the original author and source are properly credited.

Data Availability

All data needed to replicate this study are available at the Harvard Dataverse: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/WUVD8X

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on the article manuscript as well as the editorial group of Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) Misinformation Review for their thoughtful feedback and input.