principles of good report writing in research methodology

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• BMC Med Res Methodol

A tutorial on methodological studies: the what, when, how and why

Lawrence mbuagbaw.

1 Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON Canada

2 Biostatistics Unit/FSORC, 50 Charlton Avenue East, St Joseph’s Healthcare—Hamilton, 3rd Floor Martha Wing, Room H321, Hamilton, Ontario L8N 4A6 Canada

3 Centre for the Development of Best Practices in Health, Yaoundé, Cameroon

Daeria O. Lawson

Livia puljak.

4 Center for Evidence-Based Medicine and Health Care, Catholic University of Croatia, Ilica 242, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia

David B. Allison

5 Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health – Bloomington, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405 USA

Lehana Thabane

6 Departments of Paediatrics and Anaesthesia, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON Canada

7 Centre for Evaluation of Medicine, St. Joseph’s Healthcare-Hamilton, Hamilton, ON Canada

8 Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, ON Canada

Associated Data

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analyzed in this study.

Methodological studies – studies that evaluate the design, analysis or reporting of other research-related reports – play an important role in health research. They help to highlight issues in the conduct of research with the aim of improving health research methodology, and ultimately reducing research waste.

We provide an overview of some of the key aspects of methodological studies such as what they are, and when, how and why they are done. We adopt a “frequently asked questions” format to facilitate reading this paper and provide multiple examples to help guide researchers interested in conducting methodological studies. Some of the topics addressed include: is it necessary to publish a study protocol? How to select relevant research reports and databases for a methodological study? What approaches to data extraction and statistical analysis should be considered when conducting a methodological study? What are potential threats to validity and is there a way to appraise the quality of methodological studies?

Appropriate reflection and application of basic principles of epidemiology and biostatistics are required in the design and analysis of methodological studies. This paper provides an introduction for further discussion about the conduct of methodological studies.

The field of meta-research (or research-on-research) has proliferated in recent years in response to issues with research quality and conduct [ 1 – 3 ]. As the name suggests, this field targets issues with research design, conduct, analysis and reporting. Various types of research reports are often examined as the unit of analysis in these studies (e.g. abstracts, full manuscripts, trial registry entries). Like many other novel fields of research, meta-research has seen a proliferation of use before the development of reporting guidance. For example, this was the case with randomized trials for which risk of bias tools and reporting guidelines were only developed much later – after many trials had been published and noted to have limitations [ 4 , 5 ]; and for systematic reviews as well [ 6 – 8 ]. However, in the absence of formal guidance, studies that report on research differ substantially in how they are named, conducted and reported [ 9 , 10 ]. This creates challenges in identifying, summarizing and comparing them. In this tutorial paper, we will use the term methodological study to refer to any study that reports on the design, conduct, analysis or reporting of primary or secondary research-related reports (such as trial registry entries and conference abstracts).

In the past 10 years, there has been an increase in the use of terms related to methodological studies (based on records retrieved with a keyword search [in the title and abstract] for “methodological review” and “meta-epidemiological study” in PubMed up to December 2019), suggesting that these studies may be appearing more frequently in the literature. See Fig.  1 .

Trends in the number studies that mention “methodological review” or “meta-

epidemiological study” in PubMed.

The methods used in many methodological studies have been borrowed from systematic and scoping reviews. This practice has influenced the direction of the field, with many methodological studies including searches of electronic databases, screening of records, duplicate data extraction and assessments of risk of bias in the included studies. However, the research questions posed in methodological studies do not always require the approaches listed above, and guidance is needed on when and how to apply these methods to a methodological study. Even though methodological studies can be conducted on qualitative or mixed methods research, this paper focuses on and draws examples exclusively from quantitative research.

The objectives of this paper are to provide some insights on how to conduct methodological studies so that there is greater consistency between the research questions posed, and the design, analysis and reporting of findings. We provide multiple examples to illustrate concepts and a proposed framework for categorizing methodological studies in quantitative research.

What is a methodological study?

Any study that describes or analyzes methods (design, conduct, analysis or reporting) in published (or unpublished) literature is a methodological study. Consequently, the scope of methodological studies is quite extensive and includes, but is not limited to, topics as diverse as: research question formulation [ 11 ]; adherence to reporting guidelines [ 12 – 14 ] and consistency in reporting [ 15 ]; approaches to study analysis [ 16 ]; investigating the credibility of analyses [ 17 ]; and studies that synthesize these methodological studies [ 18 ]. While the nomenclature of methodological studies is not uniform, the intents and purposes of these studies remain fairly consistent – to describe or analyze methods in primary or secondary studies. As such, methodological studies may also be classified as a subtype of observational studies.

Parallel to this are experimental studies that compare different methods. Even though they play an important role in informing optimal research methods, experimental methodological studies are beyond the scope of this paper. Examples of such studies include the randomized trials by Buscemi et al., comparing single data extraction to double data extraction [ 19 ], and Carrasco-Labra et al., comparing approaches to presenting findings in Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) summary of findings tables [ 20 ]. In these studies, the unit of analysis is the person or groups of individuals applying the methods. We also direct readers to the Studies Within a Trial (SWAT) and Studies Within a Review (SWAR) programme operated through the Hub for Trials Methodology Research, for further reading as a potential useful resource for these types of experimental studies [ 21 ]. Lastly, this paper is not meant to inform the conduct of research using computational simulation and mathematical modeling for which some guidance already exists [ 22 ], or studies on the development of methods using consensus-based approaches.

When should we conduct a methodological study?

Methodological studies occupy a unique niche in health research that allows them to inform methodological advances. Methodological studies should also be conducted as pre-cursors to reporting guideline development, as they provide an opportunity to understand current practices, and help to identify the need for guidance and gaps in methodological or reporting quality. For example, the development of the popular Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were preceded by methodological studies identifying poor reporting practices [ 23 , 24 ]. In these instances, after the reporting guidelines are published, methodological studies can also be used to monitor uptake of the guidelines.

These studies can also be conducted to inform the state of the art for design, analysis and reporting practices across different types of health research fields, with the aim of improving research practices, and preventing or reducing research waste. For example, Samaan et al. conducted a scoping review of adherence to different reporting guidelines in health care literature [ 18 ]. Methodological studies can also be used to determine the factors associated with reporting practices. For example, Abbade et al. investigated journal characteristics associated with the use of the Participants, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Timeframe (PICOT) format in framing research questions in trials of venous ulcer disease [ 11 ].

How often are methodological studies conducted?

There is no clear answer to this question. Based on a search of PubMed, the use of related terms (“methodological review” and “meta-epidemiological study”) – and therefore, the number of methodological studies – is on the rise. However, many other terms are used to describe methodological studies. There are also many studies that explore design, conduct, analysis or reporting of research reports, but that do not use any specific terms to describe or label their study design in terms of “methodology”. This diversity in nomenclature makes a census of methodological studies elusive. Appropriate terminology and key words for methodological studies are needed to facilitate improved accessibility for end-users.

Why do we conduct methodological studies?

Methodological studies provide information on the design, conduct, analysis or reporting of primary and secondary research and can be used to appraise quality, quantity, completeness, accuracy and consistency of health research. These issues can be explored in specific fields, journals, databases, geographical regions and time periods. For example, Areia et al. explored the quality of reporting of endoscopic diagnostic studies in gastroenterology [ 25 ]; Knol et al. investigated the reporting of p -values in baseline tables in randomized trial published in high impact journals [ 26 ]; Chen et al. describe adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement in Chinese Journals [ 27 ]; and Hopewell et al. describe the effect of editors’ implementation of CONSORT guidelines on reporting of abstracts over time [ 28 ]. Methodological studies provide useful information to researchers, clinicians, editors, publishers and users of health literature. As a result, these studies have been at the cornerstone of important methodological developments in the past two decades and have informed the development of many health research guidelines including the highly cited CONSORT statement [ 5 ].

Where can we find methodological studies?

Methodological studies can be found in most common biomedical bibliographic databases (e.g. Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, Web of Science). However, the biggest caveat is that methodological studies are hard to identify in the literature due to the wide variety of names used and the lack of comprehensive databases dedicated to them. A handful can be found in the Cochrane Library as “Cochrane Methodology Reviews”, but these studies only cover methodological issues related to systematic reviews. Previous attempts to catalogue all empirical studies of methods used in reviews were abandoned 10 years ago [ 29 ]. In other databases, a variety of search terms may be applied with different levels of sensitivity and specificity.

Some frequently asked questions about methodological studies

In this section, we have outlined responses to questions that might help inform the conduct of methodological studies.

Q: How should I select research reports for my methodological study?

A: Selection of research reports for a methodological study depends on the research question and eligibility criteria. Once a clear research question is set and the nature of literature one desires to review is known, one can then begin the selection process. Selection may begin with a broad search, especially if the eligibility criteria are not apparent. For example, a methodological study of Cochrane Reviews of HIV would not require a complex search as all eligible studies can easily be retrieved from the Cochrane Library after checking a few boxes [ 30 ]. On the other hand, a methodological study of subgroup analyses in trials of gastrointestinal oncology would require a search to find such trials, and further screening to identify trials that conducted a subgroup analysis [ 31 ].

The strategies used for identifying participants in observational studies can apply here. One may use a systematic search to identify all eligible studies. If the number of eligible studies is unmanageable, a random sample of articles can be expected to provide comparable results if it is sufficiently large [ 32 ]. For example, Wilson et al. used a random sample of trials from the Cochrane Stroke Group’s Trial Register to investigate completeness of reporting [ 33 ]. It is possible that a simple random sample would lead to underrepresentation of units (i.e. research reports) that are smaller in number. This is relevant if the investigators wish to compare multiple groups but have too few units in one group. In this case a stratified sample would help to create equal groups. For example, in a methodological study comparing Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews, Kahale et al. drew random samples from both groups [ 34 ]. Alternatively, systematic or purposeful sampling strategies can be used and we encourage researchers to justify their selected approaches based on the study objective.

Q: How many databases should I search?

A: The number of databases one should search would depend on the approach to sampling, which can include targeting the entire “population” of interest or a sample of that population. If you are interested in including the entire target population for your research question, or drawing a random or systematic sample from it, then a comprehensive and exhaustive search for relevant articles is required. In this case, we recommend using systematic approaches for searching electronic databases (i.e. at least 2 databases with a replicable and time stamped search strategy). The results of your search will constitute a sampling frame from which eligible studies can be drawn.

Alternatively, if your approach to sampling is purposeful, then we recommend targeting the database(s) or data sources (e.g. journals, registries) that include the information you need. For example, if you are conducting a methodological study of high impact journals in plastic surgery and they are all indexed in PubMed, you likely do not need to search any other databases. You may also have a comprehensive list of all journals of interest and can approach your search using the journal names in your database search (or by accessing the journal archives directly from the journal’s website). Even though one could also search journals’ web pages directly, using a database such as PubMed has multiple advantages, such as the use of filters, so the search can be narrowed down to a certain period, or study types of interest. Furthermore, individual journals’ web sites may have different search functionalities, which do not necessarily yield a consistent output.

Q: Should I publish a protocol for my methodological study?

A: A protocol is a description of intended research methods. Currently, only protocols for clinical trials require registration [ 35 ]. Protocols for systematic reviews are encouraged but no formal recommendation exists. The scientific community welcomes the publication of protocols because they help protect against selective outcome reporting, the use of post hoc methodologies to embellish results, and to help avoid duplication of efforts [ 36 ]. While the latter two risks exist in methodological research, the negative consequences may be substantially less than for clinical outcomes. In a sample of 31 methodological studies, 7 (22.6%) referenced a published protocol [ 9 ]. In the Cochrane Library, there are 15 protocols for methodological reviews (21 July 2020). This suggests that publishing protocols for methodological studies is not uncommon.

Authors can consider publishing their study protocol in a scholarly journal as a manuscript. Advantages of such publication include obtaining peer-review feedback about the planned study, and easy retrieval by searching databases such as PubMed. The disadvantages in trying to publish protocols includes delays associated with manuscript handling and peer review, as well as costs, as few journals publish study protocols, and those journals mostly charge article-processing fees [ 37 ]. Authors who would like to make their protocol publicly available without publishing it in scholarly journals, could deposit their study protocols in publicly available repositories, such as the Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/ ).

Q: How to appraise the quality of a methodological study?

A: To date, there is no published tool for appraising the risk of bias in a methodological study, but in principle, a methodological study could be considered as a type of observational study. Therefore, during conduct or appraisal, care should be taken to avoid the biases common in observational studies [ 38 ]. These biases include selection bias, comparability of groups, and ascertainment of exposure or outcome. In other words, to generate a representative sample, a comprehensive reproducible search may be necessary to build a sampling frame. Additionally, random sampling may be necessary to ensure that all the included research reports have the same probability of being selected, and the screening and selection processes should be transparent and reproducible. To ensure that the groups compared are similar in all characteristics, matching, random sampling or stratified sampling can be used. Statistical adjustments for between-group differences can also be applied at the analysis stage. Finally, duplicate data extraction can reduce errors in assessment of exposures or outcomes.

Q: Should I justify a sample size?

A: In all instances where one is not using the target population (i.e. the group to which inferences from the research report are directed) [ 39 ], a sample size justification is good practice. The sample size justification may take the form of a description of what is expected to be achieved with the number of articles selected, or a formal sample size estimation that outlines the number of articles required to answer the research question with a certain precision and power. Sample size justifications in methodological studies are reasonable in the following instances:

• Comparing two groups
• Determining a proportion, mean or another quantifier
• Determining factors associated with an outcome using regression-based analyses

For example, El Dib et al. computed a sample size requirement for a methodological study of diagnostic strategies in randomized trials, based on a confidence interval approach [ 40 ].

Q: What should I call my study?

A: Other terms which have been used to describe/label methodological studies include “ methodological review ”, “methodological survey” , “meta-epidemiological study” , “systematic review” , “systematic survey”, “meta-research”, “research-on-research” and many others. We recommend that the study nomenclature be clear, unambiguous, informative and allow for appropriate indexing. Methodological study nomenclature that should be avoided includes “ systematic review” – as this will likely be confused with a systematic review of a clinical question. “ Systematic survey” may also lead to confusion about whether the survey was systematic (i.e. using a preplanned methodology) or a survey using “ systematic” sampling (i.e. a sampling approach using specific intervals to determine who is selected) [ 32 ]. Any of the above meanings of the words “ systematic” may be true for methodological studies and could be potentially misleading. “ Meta-epidemiological study” is ideal for indexing, but not very informative as it describes an entire field. The term “ review ” may point towards an appraisal or “review” of the design, conduct, analysis or reporting (or methodological components) of the targeted research reports, yet it has also been used to describe narrative reviews [ 41 , 42 ]. The term “ survey ” is also in line with the approaches used in many methodological studies [ 9 ], and would be indicative of the sampling procedures of this study design. However, in the absence of guidelines on nomenclature, the term “ methodological study ” is broad enough to capture most of the scenarios of such studies.

Q: Should I account for clustering in my methodological study?

A: Data from methodological studies are often clustered. For example, articles coming from a specific source may have different reporting standards (e.g. the Cochrane Library). Articles within the same journal may be similar due to editorial practices and policies, reporting requirements and endorsement of guidelines. There is emerging evidence that these are real concerns that should be accounted for in analyses [ 43 ]. Some cluster variables are described in the section: “ What variables are relevant to methodological studies?”

A variety of modelling approaches can be used to account for correlated data, including the use of marginal, fixed or mixed effects regression models with appropriate computation of standard errors [ 44 ]. For example, Kosa et al. used generalized estimation equations to account for correlation of articles within journals [ 15 ]. Not accounting for clustering could lead to incorrect p -values, unduly narrow confidence intervals, and biased estimates [ 45 ].

Q: Should I extract data in duplicate?

A: Yes. Duplicate data extraction takes more time but results in less errors [ 19 ]. Data extraction errors in turn affect the effect estimate [ 46 ], and therefore should be mitigated. Duplicate data extraction should be considered in the absence of other approaches to minimize extraction errors. However, much like systematic reviews, this area will likely see rapid new advances with machine learning and natural language processing technologies to support researchers with screening and data extraction [ 47 , 48 ]. However, experience plays an important role in the quality of extracted data and inexperienced extractors should be paired with experienced extractors [ 46 , 49 ].

Q: Should I assess the risk of bias of research reports included in my methodological study?

A : Risk of bias is most useful in determining the certainty that can be placed in the effect measure from a study. In methodological studies, risk of bias may not serve the purpose of determining the trustworthiness of results, as effect measures are often not the primary goal of methodological studies. Determining risk of bias in methodological studies is likely a practice borrowed from systematic review methodology, but whose intrinsic value is not obvious in methodological studies. When it is part of the research question, investigators often focus on one aspect of risk of bias. For example, Speich investigated how blinding was reported in surgical trials [ 50 ], and Abraha et al., investigated the application of intention-to-treat analyses in systematic reviews and trials [ 51 ].

Q: What variables are relevant to methodological studies?

A: There is empirical evidence that certain variables may inform the findings in a methodological study. We outline some of these and provide a brief overview below:

• Country: Countries and regions differ in their research cultures, and the resources available to conduct research. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that there may be differences in methodological features across countries. Methodological studies have reported loco-regional differences in reporting quality [ 52 , 53 ]. This may also be related to challenges non-English speakers face in publishing papers in English.
• Authors’ expertise: The inclusion of authors with expertise in research methodology, biostatistics, and scientific writing is likely to influence the end-product. Oltean et al. found that among randomized trials in orthopaedic surgery, the use of analyses that accounted for clustering was more likely when specialists (e.g. statistician, epidemiologist or clinical trials methodologist) were included on the study team [ 54 ]. Fleming et al. found that including methodologists in the review team was associated with appropriate use of reporting guidelines [ 55 ].
• Source of funding and conflicts of interest: Some studies have found that funded studies report better [ 56 , 57 ], while others do not [ 53 , 58 ]. The presence of funding would indicate the availability of resources deployed to ensure optimal design, conduct, analysis and reporting. However, the source of funding may introduce conflicts of interest and warrant assessment. For example, Kaiser et al. investigated the effect of industry funding on obesity or nutrition randomized trials and found that reporting quality was similar [ 59 ]. Thomas et al. looked at reporting quality of long-term weight loss trials and found that industry funded studies were better [ 60 ]. Kan et al. examined the association between industry funding and “positive trials” (trials reporting a significant intervention effect) and found that industry funding was highly predictive of a positive trial [ 61 ]. This finding is similar to that of a recent Cochrane Methodology Review by Hansen et al. [ 62 ]
• Journal characteristics: Certain journals’ characteristics may influence the study design, analysis or reporting. Characteristics such as journal endorsement of guidelines [ 63 , 64 ], and Journal Impact Factor (JIF) have been shown to be associated with reporting [ 63 , 65 – 67 ].
• Study size (sample size/number of sites): Some studies have shown that reporting is better in larger studies [ 53 , 56 , 58 ].
• Year of publication: It is reasonable to assume that design, conduct, analysis and reporting of research will change over time. Many studies have demonstrated improvements in reporting over time or after the publication of reporting guidelines [ 68 , 69 ].
• Type of intervention: In a methodological study of reporting quality of weight loss intervention studies, Thabane et al. found that trials of pharmacologic interventions were reported better than trials of non-pharmacologic interventions [ 70 ].
• Interactions between variables: Complex interactions between the previously listed variables are possible. High income countries with more resources may be more likely to conduct larger studies and incorporate a variety of experts. Authors in certain countries may prefer certain journals, and journal endorsement of guidelines and editorial policies may change over time.

Q: Should I focus only on high impact journals?

A: Investigators may choose to investigate only high impact journals because they are more likely to influence practice and policy, or because they assume that methodological standards would be higher. However, the JIF may severely limit the scope of articles included and may skew the sample towards articles with positive findings. The generalizability and applicability of findings from a handful of journals must be examined carefully, especially since the JIF varies over time. Even among journals that are all “high impact”, variations exist in methodological standards.

Q: Can I conduct a methodological study of qualitative research?

A: Yes. Even though a lot of methodological research has been conducted in the quantitative research field, methodological studies of qualitative studies are feasible. Certain databases that catalogue qualitative research including the Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) have defined subject headings that are specific to methodological research (e.g. “research methodology”). Alternatively, one could also conduct a qualitative methodological review; that is, use qualitative approaches to synthesize methodological issues in qualitative studies.

Q: What reporting guidelines should I use for my methodological study?

A: There is no guideline that covers the entire scope of methodological studies. One adaptation of the PRISMA guidelines has been published, which works well for studies that aim to use the entire target population of research reports [ 71 ]. However, it is not widely used (40 citations in 2 years as of 09 December 2019), and methodological studies that are designed as cross-sectional or before-after studies require a more fit-for purpose guideline. A more encompassing reporting guideline for a broad range of methodological studies is currently under development [ 72 ]. However, in the absence of formal guidance, the requirements for scientific reporting should be respected, and authors of methodological studies should focus on transparency and reproducibility.

Q: What are the potential threats to validity and how can I avoid them?

A: Methodological studies may be compromised by a lack of internal or external validity. The main threats to internal validity in methodological studies are selection and confounding bias. Investigators must ensure that the methods used to select articles does not make them differ systematically from the set of articles to which they would like to make inferences. For example, attempting to make extrapolations to all journals after analyzing high-impact journals would be misleading.

Many factors (confounders) may distort the association between the exposure and outcome if the included research reports differ with respect to these factors [ 73 ]. For example, when examining the association between source of funding and completeness of reporting, it may be necessary to account for journals that endorse the guidelines. Confounding bias can be addressed by restriction, matching and statistical adjustment [ 73 ]. Restriction appears to be the method of choice for many investigators who choose to include only high impact journals or articles in a specific field. For example, Knol et al. examined the reporting of p -values in baseline tables of high impact journals [ 26 ]. Matching is also sometimes used. In the methodological study of non-randomized interventional studies of elective ventral hernia repair, Parker et al. matched prospective studies with retrospective studies and compared reporting standards [ 74 ]. Some other methodological studies use statistical adjustments. For example, Zhang et al. used regression techniques to determine the factors associated with missing participant data in trials [ 16 ].

With regard to external validity, researchers interested in conducting methodological studies must consider how generalizable or applicable their findings are. This should tie in closely with the research question and should be explicit. For example. Findings from methodological studies on trials published in high impact cardiology journals cannot be assumed to be applicable to trials in other fields. However, investigators must ensure that their sample truly represents the target sample either by a) conducting a comprehensive and exhaustive search, or b) using an appropriate and justified, randomly selected sample of research reports.

Even applicability to high impact journals may vary based on the investigators’ definition, and over time. For example, for high impact journals in the field of general medicine, Bouwmeester et al. included the Annals of Internal Medicine (AIM), BMJ, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), Lancet, the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), and PLoS Medicine ( n  = 6) [ 75 ]. In contrast, the high impact journals selected in the methodological study by Schiller et al. were BMJ, JAMA, Lancet, and NEJM ( n  = 4) [ 76 ]. Another methodological study by Kosa et al. included AIM, BMJ, JAMA, Lancet and NEJM ( n  = 5). In the methodological study by Thabut et al., journals with a JIF greater than 5 were considered to be high impact. Riado Minguez et al. used first quartile journals in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) for a specific year to determine “high impact” [ 77 ]. Ultimately, the definition of high impact will be based on the number of journals the investigators are willing to include, the year of impact and the JIF cut-off [ 78 ]. We acknowledge that the term “generalizability” may apply differently for methodological studies, especially when in many instances it is possible to include the entire target population in the sample studied.

Finally, methodological studies are not exempt from information bias which may stem from discrepancies in the included research reports [ 79 ], errors in data extraction, or inappropriate interpretation of the information extracted. Likewise, publication bias may also be a concern in methodological studies, but such concepts have not yet been explored.

A proposed framework

In order to inform discussions about methodological studies, the development of guidance for what should be reported, we have outlined some key features of methodological studies that can be used to classify them. For each of the categories outlined below, we provide an example. In our experience, the choice of approach to completing a methodological study can be informed by asking the following four questions:

• What is the aim?

A methodological study may be focused on exploring sources of bias in primary or secondary studies (meta-bias), or how bias is analyzed. We have taken care to distinguish bias (i.e. systematic deviations from the truth irrespective of the source) from reporting quality or completeness (i.e. not adhering to a specific reporting guideline or norm). An example of where this distinction would be important is in the case of a randomized trial with no blinding. This study (depending on the nature of the intervention) would be at risk of performance bias. However, if the authors report that their study was not blinded, they would have reported adequately. In fact, some methodological studies attempt to capture both “quality of conduct” and “quality of reporting”, such as Richie et al., who reported on the risk of bias in randomized trials of pharmacy practice interventions [ 80 ]. Babic et al. investigated how risk of bias was used to inform sensitivity analyses in Cochrane reviews [ 81 ]. Further, biases related to choice of outcomes can also be explored. For example, Tan et al investigated differences in treatment effect size based on the outcome reported [ 82 ].

Methodological studies may report quality of reporting against a reporting checklist (i.e. adherence to guidelines) or against expected norms. For example, Croituro et al. report on the quality of reporting in systematic reviews published in dermatology journals based on their adherence to the PRISMA statement [ 83 ], and Khan et al. described the quality of reporting of harms in randomized controlled trials published in high impact cardiovascular journals based on the CONSORT extension for harms [ 84 ]. Other methodological studies investigate reporting of certain features of interest that may not be part of formally published checklists or guidelines. For example, Mbuagbaw et al. described how often the implications for research are elaborated using the Evidence, Participants, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Timeframe (EPICOT) format [ 30 ].

Sometimes investigators may be interested in how consistent reports of the same research are, as it is expected that there should be consistency between: conference abstracts and published manuscripts; manuscript abstracts and manuscript main text; and trial registration and published manuscript. For example, Rosmarakis et al. investigated consistency between conference abstracts and full text manuscripts [ 85 ].

In addition to identifying issues with reporting in primary and secondary studies, authors of methodological studies may be interested in determining the factors that are associated with certain reporting practices. Many methodological studies incorporate this, albeit as a secondary outcome. For example, Farrokhyar et al. investigated the factors associated with reporting quality in randomized trials of coronary artery bypass grafting surgery [ 53 ].

Methodological studies may also be used to describe methods or compare methods, and the factors associated with methods. Muller et al. described the methods used for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies [ 86 ].

Some methodological studies synthesize results from other methodological studies. For example, Li et al. conducted a scoping review of methodological reviews that investigated consistency between full text and abstracts in primary biomedical research [ 87 ].

Some methodological studies may investigate the use of names and terms in health research. For example, Martinic et al. investigated the definitions of systematic reviews used in overviews of systematic reviews (OSRs), meta-epidemiological studies and epidemiology textbooks [ 88 ].

In addition to the previously mentioned experimental methodological studies, there may exist other types of methodological studies not captured here.

• 2. What is the design?

Most methodological studies are purely descriptive and report their findings as counts (percent) and means (standard deviation) or medians (interquartile range). For example, Mbuagbaw et al. described the reporting of research recommendations in Cochrane HIV systematic reviews [ 30 ]. Gohari et al. described the quality of reporting of randomized trials in diabetes in Iran [ 12 ].

Some methodological studies are analytical wherein “analytical studies identify and quantify associations, test hypotheses, identify causes and determine whether an association exists between variables, such as between an exposure and a disease.” [ 89 ] In the case of methodological studies all these investigations are possible. For example, Kosa et al. investigated the association between agreement in primary outcome from trial registry to published manuscript and study covariates. They found that larger and more recent studies were more likely to have agreement [ 15 ]. Tricco et al. compared the conclusion statements from Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews with a meta-analysis of the primary outcome and found that non-Cochrane reviews were more likely to report positive findings. These results are a test of the null hypothesis that the proportions of Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews that report positive results are equal [ 90 ].

• 3. What is the sampling strategy?

Methodological reviews with narrow research questions may be able to include the entire target population. For example, in the methodological study of Cochrane HIV systematic reviews, Mbuagbaw et al. included all of the available studies ( n  = 103) [ 30 ].

Many methodological studies use random samples of the target population [ 33 , 91 , 92 ]. Alternatively, purposeful sampling may be used, limiting the sample to a subset of research-related reports published within a certain time period, or in journals with a certain ranking or on a topic. Systematic sampling can also be used when random sampling may be challenging to implement.

• 4. What is the unit of analysis?

Many methodological studies use a research report (e.g. full manuscript of study, abstract portion of the study) as the unit of analysis, and inferences can be made at the study-level. However, both published and unpublished research-related reports can be studied. These may include articles, conference abstracts, registry entries etc.

Some methodological studies report on items which may occur more than once per article. For example, Paquette et al. report on subgroup analyses in Cochrane reviews of atrial fibrillation in which 17 systematic reviews planned 56 subgroup analyses [ 93 ].

This framework is outlined in Fig.  2 .

A proposed framework for methodological studies

Conclusions

Methodological studies have examined different aspects of reporting such as quality, completeness, consistency and adherence to reporting guidelines. As such, many of the methodological study examples cited in this tutorial are related to reporting. However, as an evolving field, the scope of research questions that can be addressed by methodological studies is expected to increase.

In this paper we have outlined the scope and purpose of methodological studies, along with examples of instances in which various approaches have been used. In the absence of formal guidance on the design, conduct, analysis and reporting of methodological studies, we have provided some advice to help make methodological studies consistent. This advice is grounded in good contemporary scientific practice. Generally, the research question should tie in with the sampling approach and planned analysis. We have also highlighted the variables that may inform findings from methodological studies. Lastly, we have provided suggestions for ways in which authors can categorize their methodological studies to inform their design and analysis.

Acknowledgements

Abbreviations.

Authors’ contributions

LM conceived the idea and drafted the outline and paper. DOL and LT commented on the idea and draft outline. LM, LP and DOL performed literature searches and data extraction. All authors (LM, DOL, LT, LP, DBA) reviewed several draft versions of the manuscript and approved the final manuscript.

This work did not receive any dedicated funding.

Availability of data and materials

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

DOL, DBA, LM, LP and LT are involved in the development of a reporting guideline for methodological studies.

Publisher’s Note

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

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

Unit 4: Principles of Research and Report Writing

6019 Course Learning Outcomes

This unit supports the following course learning outcomes (CLOs):

• Prepare and evaluate professional business documents in common formats, using appropriate tone, structure/format (including headings and graphics) and patterns of development (direct/indirect);
• Prepare advanced-level proposals and research reports (informational/analytical) on program-related topics; summarize and integrate effective research sources;

Unit 4 Chapters

• Chapter 9: Introduction to Report Writing
• Chapter 10: Introduction to the Research Process
• Chapter 11: Using Sources: Academic Integrity and Professional Research Work
• Chapter 12: Introduction to Argumentation and Research in School and at Work
• Chapter 13: More on the Main Components of the Research Writing Process
• Chapter 14: Introduction to Visual Communication Strategies

Advanced Professional Communication Copyright © 2021 by Melissa Ashman; Arley Cruthers; eCampusOntario; Ontario Business Faculty; and University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Report Writing: Process, principles and styles

Related Papers

Rajesh Tiwari

unilorin.edu.ng

Jacob O Aweda

Lisa Falschlunger

Due to the fact, that the quality of decisions is directly linked to the availability and the perception of information, its selection and representation are of major importance in business communication. The purpose of this paper is to identify the current status quo of existing research in the field of information design in business reports (reporting design) in order to cluster empirical contributions and to generate new findings. A systematic literature review consisting of 48 international studies published between 2003 and 2013 was conducted. The extended cognitive fit model from Shaft and Vessey (2006) serves as a research framework. The analysis of its four main perspectives: “External Problem Representation”, “Internal Problem Representation”, “Problem-Solving Task” and “Mental Representation” revealed the following eight literature streams: (1) Tables versus Graphs, (2) Analyses of annual reports, (3) Reporting Guidelines, (4) Knowledge and Skills, (5) Task Type, (6) Task ...

Wong Sin Choon

New Directions for Institutional Research

Henrik Minassians

Although allegedly addressing state, campuses, and opinion leaders, many performance reports were so long and dense that they discouraged readers. Readability was important, because reports had to persuade skeptics that external accountability and institutional improvement were complementary—not conflicting—goals.

francis edum-fotwe , Dimitris Antoniadis

All project life cycles from the shortest to the longest demand from the project teams some type of reporting. Currently the construction industry perceives reporting as a bureaucratic contractual process that occurs as and when demanded by the Client or the Senior Manager. It does not contribute as much as it should to the decision making process and frequently the faster pace of the project makes the reporting process redundant. Reporting, as part of the written form of communication within the project system, is considered as the means of interconnecting the numerous activities that contribute towards the delivery of the project and the actors that are involved in the project. The interconnections or interrelations are established through the report writers (encoders) and the recipients of the reports (decoders) and these are affected by a number of factors. These factors and the number of interconnections introduce complexity. In this paper the authors will review current literature in project reporting and will present examples of reporting features that contribute to project complexity. They will discuss some of the key reporting attributes under the context of complexity and will propose a conceptual approach to minimise complexity driven in projects through reports. Finally they will highlight the future challenge(s) that are faced by academia and the industry with regard to reports. Keywords: communication, complexity, information management, project reporting

Jonathan Arnett

The International Journal of Digital Accounting Research

Roman Klimko

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Long Range Planning

Giuliano Noci

International Journal of Public Administration

Stuart Tooley

IFAD Research and Knowledge , Bia Carneiro , Alessandra Garbero

IJAR Indexing

Journal of Security and Sustainability Issues

Hendro Wicaksono

Integrated Reporting

Hazel Thornton

nafis iqbal sajib

Ibadan University Press eBooks

Emeka Emmanuel OKAFOR

Dimitris Antoniadis

Journal of International Financial Management & Accounting

Wendy Green

Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management

Abdifatah Haji

henri llugany

Pramen Shrestha

Jordi Morrós Ribera

International Journal of Corporate Strategy and Social Responsibility

Andrew Kluth

Dr Indra Pathmanathan

Joan Herman

Stewart Marshall

VIDYA - A JOURNAL OF GUJARAT UNIVERSITY

Alpesh Prajapati

British journal of community nursing

Keith Meadows

stanley willie

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

• Report Writing
• Sessions and recordings
• Skills guide
• Identifying your purpose
• Structuring your report
• Language for report writing

Purpose and principles

• The Process
• Structures and content
• Language style
• Design and formatting
• Quick resources (5-10 mins)
• e-learning and books (30 mins+)
• SkillsCheck This link opens in a new window

Reports may be written for various purposes, such as a defining a position statement, providing a design commentary, setting out options, undertaking an evaluation, or reporting on research or problem-solving projects.  You may be free to decide on your purpose in your report, but often this will be decided for you in your assignment brief or working context. Identify the purpose of the report as you begin your research process and begin to structure your report.

Role and Audience

Professionality

All report writing requires a professional and authoritative approach which distinguishes report writing from creative writing or more reflective discussive essays. This professionality is supported by the following three principles of integrity:

• Evidence based Reports are evidence based, whether they are explaining existing evidence from your reading or data collection, or using evidence to back up recommendations for future actions.
• Objectivity Relevant evidence must be presented neutrally, and without bias. If bias is present, this should be openly acknowledged as a limitation; Both evidence and conclusions arrived at should be critically evaluated, acknowledging alternative options or perspectives.
• Ethics A key aspects of ethics is to avoid harming participants - you may need to keep respondent's identities confidentially anonymous and their data secure, and also to avoid openly identifying organisations for which criticisms are included in your report. Use non-judgemental language if criticisms cannot be completely avoided.

Criticality

Develop and demonstrate criticality in your report by undertaking the following processes:

• Test your ideas by undertaking wide reading; don’t rely on ‘common sense’
• Examine the evidence base for both suggestions and criticisms
• Synthesise information from various sources to draw conclusions
• Consider the limitations or relevance of recommendations for specific contexts
• Present a reasoned argument and logical recommendations to your reader.

For more on developing your criticality, see our Critical Writing Guide .

• << Previous: Other types of reports
• Next: The Process >>

Adsetts Library

Collegiate library, sheffield hallam university, city campus, howard street, sheffield s1 1wb, contact us / live chat, +44 (0)114 225 2222, [email protected], accessibility, legal information, privacy and gdpr, login to libapps.

Report Writing in Research Methodology | Tips to write

Report writing in research methodology.

A report is a well-written formal document that briefly describes the process and findings of a research. It outlines the systematic investigation, recommendations, and gaps that need further inquiry. A well-crafted research report tells you about all the main areas of a research process. In this article, we will talk about how to write a report in research methodology.

Importance of a report in research methodology

Below are some points that make the report crucial in research methodology:

• Knowledge transfer

A report contributes to the existing knowledge. Through this report, we can communicate effectively with the findings of the investigation.

• Identification of knowledge gaps

A research report identifies knowledge gaps that can be investigated further. The report shows what and how much has been done.

• presents information precisely

A research report makes you able to show research information in a concise and precise manner.

• Time-efficient

A report is a time-efficient document because you don’t have to spend much time detailing the findings. Rather, it is written briefly and you can send it through email to the concerned people.

Structure of a report in research methodology

You can write the report in the following structure:

The title of your research should point to the objectives, aims, and findings of your systematic investigation.

• Table of contents

The table of contents will make the readers able to navigate your research report.

In the abstract section, the reader can have an overview of the important aspects of research such as method, data collection, and findings. While writing the abstract you should follow the format of 5ws and 1H; what, where, when, who, why, and how.

• Introduction

You can write aims and the problems that become the cause of your research. You should also indicate whether you have achieved your objectives of the research or it requires further work.

• Literature review

In a literature review, you will write a survey that highlights existing knowledge about the research topic. In the literature review, you can present the research hypothesis and its implications.

• Investigation

In this portion of the investigation, write in-depth information briefly about the research process that includes methodology, data collection, sample, research subjects, and analysis.

In this portion, you are expected to show the results and findings of your systematic investigation.

Now, you will further explain the results of the research that you outlined earlier. Justify for each finding and show whether the outcomes are according to the hypothesis or not.

Finally, you will write a summary of your research in which you will talk about the whole report of research methodology.

• Reference and appendices

In this section, mention all the primary and secondary sources used during research.

Tips for writing a report in research methodology

Before writing a report in research methodology, you must create an outline of its core areas and then write its detail concisely. Below are some tips you can follow while writing a report:

• Define your audience

Always keep your audience in mind so that you can determine the tone while writing the report. If the report is for a general audience, you can present information in a simple way. While if you are writing for a particular audience, you can use field-specific or technical terms as well.

• Include significant findings

In report writing, exclude all irrelevant information and only highlight important findings and data. Just present the abridged version of the systematic investigation.

• Include illustrations

You can use illustrations and visual presentations to make your data more efficient. You can use charts, graphs, and relevant images to bring additional credibility to systematic investigation.

• Choose the right title

The title of the report should be clear and precise. It must contain keywords of your research. The title should show a clear idea of the investigation so the readers can easily grasp the focus of the research.

• Proofread the report

After completion of report writing, you must proofread and edit it wherever it needs before you publish the report. The second look will make the information valid and authentic. You can ask someone to go through your report or use any editing and proofreading software as well.

A report is a concise document that is the essence of research. So, you should be very careful while writing a report after conducting research. It should be accurate, clear, and concise. Its findings can communicate with the readers.

Related Posts:

• Tips on Writing a Good Essay: Valuable Information for The Student
• How to write a resume for a job search: Tips for applicants
• Malware attacks, Types and Security Tips to safe Your PC from Malware
• General Tips For Passing The NTS/Special Test Exam
• 10 Exam Stress Tips for Students and Parents
• Nine Essential Book Formatting Tips to Make Your Book More Readable

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• Ethical Considerations in Research | Types & Examples

Ethical Considerations in Research | Types & Examples

Published on October 18, 2021 by Pritha Bhandari . Revised on May 9, 2024.

Ethical considerations in research are a set of principles that guide your research designs and practices. Scientists and researchers must always adhere to a certain code of conduct when collecting data from people.

The goals of human research often include understanding real-life phenomena, studying effective treatments, investigating behaviors, and improving lives in other ways. What you decide to research and how you conduct that research involve key ethical considerations.

These considerations work to

• protect the rights of research participants
• enhance research validity
• maintain scientific or academic integrity

Table of contents

Why do research ethics matter, getting ethical approval for your study, types of ethical issues, voluntary participation, informed consent, confidentiality, potential for harm, results communication, examples of ethical failures, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about research ethics.

Research ethics matter for scientific integrity, human rights and dignity, and collaboration between science and society. These principles make sure that participation in studies is voluntary, informed, and safe for research subjects.

You’ll balance pursuing important research objectives with using ethical research methods and procedures. It’s always necessary to prevent permanent or excessive harm to participants, whether inadvertent or not.

Defying research ethics will also lower the credibility of your research because it’s hard for others to trust your data if your methods are morally questionable.

Even if a research idea is valuable to society, it doesn’t justify violating the human rights or dignity of your study participants.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Before you start any study involving data collection with people, you’ll submit your research proposal to an institutional review board (IRB) .

An IRB is a committee that checks whether your research aims and research design are ethically acceptable and follow your institution’s code of conduct. They check that your research materials and procedures are up to code.

If successful, you’ll receive IRB approval, and you can begin collecting data according to the approved procedures. If you want to make any changes to your procedures or materials, you’ll need to submit a modification application to the IRB for approval.

If unsuccessful, you may be asked to re-submit with modifications or your research proposal may receive a rejection. To get IRB approval, it’s important to explicitly note how you’ll tackle each of the ethical issues that may arise in your study.

There are several ethical issues you should always pay attention to in your research design, and these issues can overlap with each other.

You’ll usually outline ways you’ll deal with each issue in your research proposal if you plan to collect data from participants.

Voluntary participation means that all research subjects are free to choose to participate without any pressure or coercion.

All participants are able to withdraw from, or leave, the study at any point without feeling an obligation to continue. Your participants don’t need to provide a reason for leaving the study.

It’s important to make it clear to participants that there are no negative consequences or repercussions to their refusal to participate. After all, they’re taking the time to help you in the research process , so you should respect their decisions without trying to change their minds.

Voluntary participation is an ethical principle protected by international law and many scientific codes of conduct.

Take special care to ensure there’s no pressure on participants when you’re working with vulnerable groups of people who may find it hard to stop the study even when they want to.

Informed consent refers to a situation in which all potential participants receive and understand all the information they need to decide whether they want to participate. This includes information about the study’s benefits, risks, funding, and institutional approval.

You make sure to provide all potential participants with all the relevant information about

• what the study is about
• the risks and benefits of taking part
• how long the study will take
• your supervisor’s contact information and the institution’s approval number

Usually, you’ll provide participants with a text for them to read and ask them if they have any questions. If they agree to participate, they can sign or initial the consent form. Note that this may not be sufficient for informed consent when you work with particularly vulnerable groups of people.

If you’re collecting data from people with low literacy, make sure to verbally explain the consent form to them before they agree to participate.

For participants with very limited English proficiency, you should always translate the study materials or work with an interpreter so they have all the information in their first language.

In research with children, you’ll often need informed permission for their participation from their parents or guardians. Although children cannot give informed consent, it’s best to also ask for their assent (agreement) to participate, depending on their age and maturity level.

Anonymity means that you don’t know who the participants are and you can’t link any individual participant to their data.

You can only guarantee anonymity by not collecting any personally identifying information—for example, names, phone numbers, email addresses, IP addresses, physical characteristics, photos, and videos.

In many cases, it may be impossible to truly anonymize data collection . For example, data collected in person or by phone cannot be considered fully anonymous because some personal identifiers (demographic information or phone numbers) are impossible to hide.

You’ll also need to collect some identifying information if you give your participants the option to withdraw their data at a later stage.

Data pseudonymization is an alternative method where you replace identifying information about participants with pseudonymous, or fake, identifiers. The data can still be linked to participants but it’s harder to do so because you separate personal information from the study data.

Confidentiality means that you know who the participants are, but you remove all identifying information from your report.

All participants have a right to privacy, so you should protect their personal data for as long as you store or use it. Even when you can’t collect data anonymously, you should secure confidentiality whenever you can.

Some research designs aren’t conducive to confidentiality, but it’s important to make all attempts and inform participants of the risks involved.

As a researcher, you have to consider all possible sources of harm to participants. Harm can come in many different forms.

• Psychological harm: Sensitive questions or tasks may trigger negative emotions such as shame or anxiety.
• Social harm: Participation can involve social risks, public embarrassment, or stigma.
• Physical harm: Pain or injury can result from the study procedures.
• Legal harm: Reporting sensitive data could lead to legal risks or a breach of privacy.

It’s best to consider every possible source of harm in your study as well as concrete ways to mitigate them. Involve your supervisor to discuss steps for harm reduction.

Make sure to disclose all possible risks of harm to participants before the study to get informed consent. If there is a risk of harm, prepare to provide participants with resources or counseling or medical services if needed.

Some of these questions may bring up negative emotions, so you inform participants about the sensitive nature of the survey and assure them that their responses will be confidential.

The way you communicate your research results can sometimes involve ethical issues. Good science communication is honest, reliable, and credible. It’s best to make your results as transparent as possible.

Take steps to actively avoid plagiarism and research misconduct wherever possible.

Plagiarism means submitting others’ works as your own. Although it can be unintentional, copying someone else’s work without proper credit amounts to stealing. It’s an ethical problem in research communication because you may benefit by harming other researchers.

Self-plagiarism is when you republish or re-submit parts of your own papers or reports without properly citing your original work.

This is problematic because you may benefit from presenting your ideas as new and original even though they’ve already been published elsewhere in the past. You may also be infringing on your previous publisher’s copyright, violating an ethical code, or wasting time and resources by doing so.

In extreme cases of self-plagiarism, entire datasets or papers are sometimes duplicated. These are major ethical violations because they can skew research findings if taken as original data.

You notice that two published studies have similar characteristics even though they are from different years. Their sample sizes, locations, treatments, and results are highly similar, and the studies share one author in common.

Research misconduct

Research misconduct means making up or falsifying data, manipulating data analyses, or misrepresenting results in research reports. It’s a form of academic fraud.

These actions are committed intentionally and can have serious consequences; research misconduct is not a simple mistake or a point of disagreement about data analyses.

Research misconduct is a serious ethical issue because it can undermine academic integrity and institutional credibility. It leads to a waste of funding and resources that could have been used for alternative research.

Later investigations revealed that they fabricated and manipulated their data to show a nonexistent link between vaccines and autism. Wakefield also neglected to disclose important conflicts of interest, and his medical license was taken away.

This fraudulent work sparked vaccine hesitancy among parents and caregivers. The rate of MMR vaccinations in children fell sharply, and measles outbreaks became more common due to a lack of herd immunity.

Research scandals with ethical failures are littered throughout history, but some took place not that long ago.

Some scientists in positions of power have historically mistreated or even abused research participants to investigate research problems at any cost. These participants were prisoners, under their care, or otherwise trusted them to treat them with dignity.

To demonstrate the importance of research ethics, we’ll briefly review two research studies that violated human rights in modern history.

These experiments were inhumane and resulted in trauma, permanent disabilities, or death in many cases.

After some Nazi doctors were put on trial for their crimes, the Nuremberg Code of research ethics for human experimentation was developed in 1947 to establish a new standard for human experimentation in medical research.

In reality, the actual goal was to study the effects of the disease when left untreated, and the researchers never informed participants about their diagnoses or the research aims.

Although participants experienced severe health problems, including blindness and other complications, the researchers only pretended to provide medical care.

When treatment became possible in 1943, 11 years after the study began, none of the participants were offered it, despite their health conditions and high risk of death.

Ethical failures like these resulted in severe harm to participants, wasted resources, and lower trust in science and scientists. This is why all research institutions have strict ethical guidelines for performing research.

If you want to know more about statistics , methodology , or research bias , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Normal distribution
• Measures of central tendency
• Chi square tests
• Confidence interval
• Quartiles & Quantiles
• Cluster sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Thematic analysis
• Cohort study
• Peer review
• Ethnography

Research bias

• Implicit bias
• Cognitive bias
• Conformity bias
• Hawthorne effect
• Availability heuristic
• Attrition bias
• Social desirability bias

Ethical considerations in research are a set of principles that guide your research designs and practices. These principles include voluntary participation, informed consent, anonymity, confidentiality, potential for harm, and results communication.

Scientists and researchers must always adhere to a certain code of conduct when collecting data from others .

These considerations protect the rights of research participants, enhance research validity , and maintain scientific integrity.

Research ethics matter for scientific integrity, human rights and dignity, and collaboration between science and society. These principles make sure that participation in studies is voluntary, informed, and safe.

Anonymity means you don’t know who the participants are, while confidentiality means you know who they are but remove identifying information from your research report. Both are important ethical considerations .

You can only guarantee anonymity by not collecting any personally identifying information—for example, names, phone numbers, email addresses, IP addresses, physical characteristics, photos, or videos.

You can keep data confidential by using aggregate information in your research report, so that you only refer to groups of participants rather than individuals.

These actions are committed intentionally and can have serious consequences; research misconduct is not a simple mistake or a point of disagreement but a serious ethical failure.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Bhandari, P. (2024, May 09). Ethical Considerations in Research | Types & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved August 22, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/research-ethics/

Is this article helpful?

Pritha Bhandari

Other students also liked, data collection | definition, methods & examples, what is self-plagiarism | definition & how to avoid it, how to avoid plagiarism | tips on citing sources, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

Your Article Library

Principles of a good research report.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Report writing differs from person to person depending on personality, imaginative and creative abilities, experience, and training. However, most researchers agree that following general principles must be kept in mind to produce a better research report. These principles are often called as qualities or requirements of a good report.

1. Selectiveness :

It is important to exclude the matter, which is known to all. Only necessary contents should be included to save time, costs, and energy. However, care should be taken that the vital points should not be missed.

2. Comprehensiveness :

Report must be complete. It must include all the necessary contents. In short, it must contain enough detail to covey meaning.

3. Cost Consideration :

It must be prepared within the budgeted amount. It should not result into excessive costs.

4. Accuracy :

As far as possible, research report must be prepared carefully. It must be free from spelling mistakes and grammatical errors.

5. Objectivity :

Report must be free from personal bias, i.e., it must be free from one’s personal liking and disliking. The report must be prepared for impersonal needs. The facts must be stated boldly. It must reveal the bitter truth. It must suit the objectives and must meet expectations of the relevant audience/readers.

6. Clarity :

Report must reveal the facts clearly. Contents and conclusions drawn must be free from ambiguities. In short, outcomes must convey clear-cut implications.

7. Preciseness :

Research report must not be unnecessarily lengthy. It must contain only necessary parts with adequate description.

8. Simplicity :

Report must be simple to understand. Unnecessary technical words or terminologies (jargons) should be avoided.

9. Proper Language :

Researcher must use a suitable language. Language should be selected as per its target users.

10. Reliability :

Research report must be reliable. Manager can trust on it. He can be convinced to decide on the basis of research reposts.

11. Proper Format :

An ideal repost is one, which must be prepared as per commonly used format. One must comply with the contemporary practices; completely a new format should not be used.

12. Attractive :

Report must be attractive in all the important regards like size, colour, paper quality, etc. Similarly, it should use liberally the charts, diagrams, figures, illustrations, pictures, and multiple colours.

Related Articles:

• Top 11 Characteristics of a Good Report
• Research Report: Introduction, Definition and Report Format

Comments are closed.

MBA Knowledge Base

Business • Management • Technology

Home » Research Methodology » Preparing a Research Report

Preparing a Research Report

The research report is considered as a major component of the research work, because through this report the research problem , the research design , the analysis and findings are brought to the knowledge of the world. The research report converts the research work into a public asset from its earlier state of private asset.

The research report shows the readers the progress in knowledge made in the specific area or discipline. The report by bringing to light the new frontiers of knowledge enhances the society’s intellectual well-being. The report by highlighting the design and methodology, runs as a fore-runner for future researchers in this or related area. The analyses and interpretations may give a boost to knowledge. The findings and suggestions take the readers into enlightenment from ignorance. Every research must endeavor to achieve this.

The role of a research report is best known in the absence of the same – Assume for a while, that no researcher gives out his research work in the form of a report. Then the research work is just like a lamp in the pot. When, it takes the form of report it is like a lamp on the hillock illuminating the surroundings. If a research report is not made, even the researcher may not be able tell his work at a future date. Thanks to human’s potentials to forget. Such waste of efforts should never occur. If only a research report was made out, re-inventing the wheel would not take place otherwise, same problem may be analyzed by different people at different places or in the same place at different times or at the same time. This is a greater waste of human energy. Thus a research report conserves energy that would otherwise would have been spent uselessly.

Contents of Research Report

A research report generally contains three aspects:

• Preliminary Section,
• Main Body and
• Reference Section.

1. Preliminary Section

The preliminary section deals with title, acknowledgement, etc.

• Title Page : The title of the research report usually bears the investigator’s name, a statement as to the course for which the study has been required, the date of submission, and the name of the institution making that requirement. In reports of studies not undertaken for any course, the investigator’s name, the institution he belongs to and the date of completion of the work is indicated. In a published thesis the latter information is substituted or supplemented by the name of the publishers and the date and place of publication.
• Acknowledgement Page : The acknowledgement page is largely one of courtesy in which the investigator acknowledges the guidance and assistance he has received in the development of the study. Acknowledgement may not refer to the guide so much as to others who may have aided in a special way. It is rightly said that good taste calls for acknowledgements to be expressed simply and tactfully.
• Preface or Foreword : Sometimes a preface or foreword of one or two pages long, follows the acknowledgement page, bearing some initial remarks and perhaps a brief statement of the scope, aim and general character of the research.
• Table of Contents : A well-developed table of contents renders a good deal of assistance to a reader in choosing rapidly and judiciously what he should, subsequently, read carefully. It is usually desirable to include in it not only the chapter headings, but also the headings of the major subdivisions of the chapters. Sometimes the topics within the subdivisions are also included and are found enlightening by the readers.
• Lists of Tables and Figures : Another device used to supplement the table of contents for throwing more light on the subject of the thesis is that of giving lists of tables and figures which occur in the report.

2. Main Body of the Report

The main body of the research report contains all the material aspect of the research work.

• Introduction : The first part of the main body of the report, the Introduction, usually includes a statement of the factors leading up to the choice of the problem, the purposes of the study, the value and significance attached to the problem by the investigator as a contribution to knowledge and any other information to express the sincerity of the investigator in his selection. A statement and elucidation of the problem sometimes forms a part of the introduction; but more often/it is set up as a separate unit. If this is stated in a clear-cut and logical manner, the reader is able to get a sufficiently clear insight into the study from the very beginning. The problem should be defined in detail. The exact area the investigation is supposed to cover must be well demarcated. The sources of information selected and their nature and delimitation’s should be mentioned and justified. All terms of a technical nature or those which may seem vague to the lay reader need to be defined carefully. The objectives, limitations, hypotheses , etc. are given. The methodology and design of the study are also given in introduction. To explain the developmental process used for the sturdy the investigator has to describe the techniques and tools he has used for collecting, organizing, analyzing and interpreting his data . The sources of data tapped, the channels prepared or adapted and utilized, the nature of data collected, their validity and reliability – all these should be given in a clear and adequate manner. Data collected, but rejected and the methods tried but not pursued – these should also find their place in the report and should not be just left out of the picture.
• Survey of Related Literature : Any research worker has to be up-to-date in his information about studies, related to his own problem, already made by others. References are made to such similar or related studies and their evaluation too is made for the benefit of the reader either in the Introductory chapter, or else in a separate chapter. Herein the author finds another opportunity to justify his own endeavor and to emphasize the worthwhile elements in the treatment, selected by him, of the problem. Read More: The Literature Review in Research
• Analysis and Interpretation ;The analysis and interpretation section deals with the main works undertaken. Each objective of the research work, each hypothesis, each research question posed and such other major constituents of the research work are thoroughly probed, analysed using the statistical data collected applying appropriate tools of analysis and interpretations are made in the light of the analysis made . Unusual or complex techniques of collection, organization, analysis and interpretation are explained in full. Whether the original data themselves should be included in the text or given in the appendix depends on the nature of the data. If they are not too extensive and are necessary to clarify the discussion, they should certainly find a place in the text proper, or in the footnotes. If they are extensive and cumbersome, they should be placed in the appendix. Of the various aids used to make the presentation of data more effective, tables and figures are most common. When statistical data are assembled according to certain common factors in the form of tables, significant relationships show up clearly. Depending on the type of material at one’s disposal, many kinds of figures are found useful, e.g., statistical diagrams, photographs and maps, etc. All the information described above is sometimes confined to one chapter with separate subdivisions arranged stage-wise. Otherwise, separate chapters are devoted each major functional area or objective studied. The arrangement depends on the quantity of information one has to convey to the reader regarding the different stages in the process of the development of the study.
• Conclusion : The final unit of the report usually contains the findings of the study, the conclusions the investigator has arrived at, and the generalization he has formulated on the basis of the study. In stating the conclusions, the investigator must indicate what his contribution has been to his field of study. He should indicate on what data his various conclusions are based. He should clearly demarcate between the inevitable conclusions and his own interpretation of certain data. The range of applicability of the conclusions should be indicated on the basis of the limitations of the sources, the sample, the tools of collection and analysis, etc. Negative as well as positive results should find a place in the conclusions. Any recommendations, as to the application of the findings, the investigator wishes to make, can find a place in this chapter. Recommendations or suggestions for further study in the field touched by the present research are also found useful and are usually included in the concluding chapter.

3. Referencing Section of the Report

• Bibliography : The ‘works cited’ form of bibliography is preferable over the ‘sources consulted’. Every book, thesis, article, documents which has been cited should be included in the list of ‘works cited’. The bibliography should follow a logical arrangement in alphabetical order. In report of current practice is to have one comprehensive listing-not to divide into books, journals, newspapers, official papers, documents and manuscripts. The author(s) name, the title of the work, date of publication, name of the publisher and the place of publication be mentioned. For articles, the volume number and inclusive pages be also given, the author’s initials or surname should follow the name. When there are three or more authors of a particular work, the co-authors may be referred alphabetically If there by more than one work by the same author, the author’s name should be listed only once; subsequently a line will substitute his name. This bibliographical listing should not be numbered. It should be given only at the end of the thesis,
• Appendix : The appendix section gives a copy of the tools of research used, certain sample statistical workings, articles published by the researcher, etc. Each class of material given may be numbered as Appendix I, Appendix II and so on. It is saner to give the appendices in the same order in which the relevant items are used.
• Index : Index is a very important component which facilitates easy location of a concept or entity mentioned in the main body of the work. Here alphabetical order is followed. Page number is given to easy location. Author Index, Subject Index and Sponsor Index are certain indices used. All the three may be separately given and merged into one single class of ‘index’.

Principles of Good Research Report Writing

Following are some important principles for writing a good research report :

• Make small sentences: Reading begins to get strenuous when sentences used in the research report average more than 25 words.
• Vary sentence length: In using short sentences do not let the work become choppy. Sentences of considerable length are all right provided. Better they are balanced with enough short sentences.
• Use simple words: The researcher is advised to use simple words in his research report.
• Use familiar words: It is better to use familiar words in a research report.
• Avoid unnecessary words: The use of unnecessary words tire a reader and fog up the writing.
• Write to express not to impress: The best way to impress the reader of report is to express what you have to say clearly and directly.
• Write as you talk: The researcher should make his report writing as though it is his speech.
• Keep as many active verbs as possible: Use of active verbs puts life into report writing.
• Tie in with reader’s experience: Always write research reports with a particular reader in mind. Relate what you have to tell him about your research report. This is the way to have the reader understand your report.
• Make the report short and sweet: A short report makes reading interest and sweet. Short report should not mean short-cut report.

Related posts:

• Referencing a Research Report
• Steps Involved in Drafting a Research Report
• Writing the Research Report
• Contents and Layout of Research Report
• Accounting Concepts for Preparing Financial Statements
• Interpretation of Research Data
• Tips for Effective Research Interviews
• Inductive and Deductive Research Approach
• Simple Random Sampling in Research
• Methods of Data Processing in Research

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses cookies, including third-party cookies, to improve your experience and deliver personalized content.

By continuing to use this website, you agree to our use of all cookies. For more information visit IMA's Cookie Policy .

Change username?

Create a new account, forgot password, sign in to myima, 5 principles of report design.

April 01, 2018

By: Tom Downen , CPA, Ph.D.

In my previous experience as a supervisory accounting professional and my current role as an accounting professor, I’ve reviewed numerous financial and other reports and have observed that accounting students and young professionals alike often prepare reports that are lacking in a variety of ways. These draft reports have presented issues that tend to fall into five major categories: accuracy, consistency, appearance, efficiency, and usability, with occasional overlap between them. While I’ve noticed these issues mostly in the work of younger and inexperienced report preparers, even seasoned professionals could benefit by keeping these principles in mind when preparing reports.

For illustrative purposes, consider an organization (we’ll call it ABC Organization) with an internal service center tasked with supplying paper to various departments. Suppose that the internal service center intends to bill the other departments for their paper consumption and therefore needs to report types and quantities of paper by consumer.

Figure 1 provides a sample report for this purpose, generated using Microsoft Excel. This report has a variety of design issues, perhaps representing a first draft that might be prepared. Before you continue reading, it may be insightful to take a few minutes to closely examine this sample report and try to identify necessary changes. Determining that this report has design problems is a critical step (and may not be particularly difficult), but understanding the specific nature of the reporting problems and how to correct them is key to producing higher-quality reports later.

It’s important when reviewing reports to allow some flexibility in presentation as long as the end result is still appropriately professional. In my experience, individuals often develop their own reporting style (such as selecting particular fonts and other reporting attributes that they favor); my primary emphasis is in encouraging the use of a consistent and professional reporting style compliant with these five principles. Evaluation of these principles is likely to be more beneficial for reports that are prepared manually, but they’re also worthy of consideration related to system-generated reports that can be negatively affected by the setup and maintenance of system components (the so-called “garbage in, garbage out” scenario).

1. ACCURACY

The accuracy principle simply means that the content of a report represents what it claims it does. It involves, for example, ensuring that the written components and titles in the report are free from spelling and grammatical errors and that the data presented is associated with the time period(s) indicated. It should also require that the titles and descriptions in the report are consistent with the actual amounts included in the report.

For example, an amount reported as wages expense on a report should, in fact, be the amount of wages expense for the period and not some other expense. And, of course, any amounts included in the report need to be accurate, even if amounts (particularly in accounting) sometimes require judgment and estimation. When the true amounts may not be known for certain until some future date, as is common with accounting data, the estimated amounts should at least be verifiable against standard data sources to be considered accurate.

In my professional experience, reports often included nonfinancial data such as employee full-time equivalents (FTEs), inventory quantities, and even pairs of safety shoes. As financial systems don’t always track such measures, utilizing established scales to convert financial data and to reasonably estimate nonfinancial measures is sometimes necessary. Further, I learned to be particularly cautious when reports include any labels that are presented in all caps because such labels usually are excluded from spell-checking functions.

The sample report is lacking in accuracy in at least three regards. First, both the title (“Organziation”) and one consumer name (“Marekting”) have spelling errors. Misspellings can occur when reports are prepared in a hurry and involve manual data entry. The misspellings can usually be easily detected and corrected by using the spell-­checking function available in most software packages, including Microsoft Excel, though these tools aren’t always sufficient. All reports should be proofread carefully. Also, the total for “Std 81/2×14” of 38 reams is clearly incorrect, as the chief legal officer alone consumed 40 reams. These accuracy problems are noted in Figure 2. Other accuracy issues, such as specific amounts not corresponding to the label or period indicated, could be less immediately apparent. The process for determining the paper quantities for each consumer also could need to be validated.

2. CONSISTENCY

The consistency principle requires that the format and layout of a report are similar to prior issuances of the same report and/or other reports issued by the same department. In many organizations, selected individuals or departments (such as the CFO or the board of directors) will receive many different reports each period. Depending on how well such a recipient organizes reports, whether electronic or in paper form, having a consistent (and, in certain cases, distinctive) format or “feel” for each report or for each issuing department will allow the recipient to quickly identify a needed report for a specific related decision. Having a consistent format can also provide a brand style for the source department or individual preparer.

In my own reporting, for example, I developed a preference for using the Garamond font in the title bar (also centered and bolded) and the Book Antiqua font in the body of my reports. Consistency also involves ensuring that titles and descriptions remain the same from one period to the next so that recipients know that the same information is being reported. (To the contrary, changing a column or row label, even slightly, could lead a recipient to question whether something different is now being reported.) Fonts and other format attributes also should be consistent to be in compliance with the principle.

A number of consistency issues exist in the sample report. For one, although reporting styles will vary, the title for this report isn’t consistent with what most people would use. More often, the title would be centered and would perhaps involve bolded or other emphasized text. The sample report also includes some inconsistent consumer descriptors. Most of the noted consumers represent groups or departments, but two of them (Chief Legal Officer and Manufacturing Manager) represent individuals. This is an example of a reporting issue that could result from inconsistent structure within the accounting system.

Last, although I find that many students in particular have difficulty noticing such a problem, one row in the report (for the Manufacturing Manager) is presented using a different font. This particular problem often arises when an additional row must be added to a pre-existing report. Figure 3 highlights the consistency issues associated with the sample report.

3. APPEARANCE

The appearance principle means that the report is aesthetically pleasing and also professional-looking. (After all, this is similar to but not quite the same as creating artwork.) Aesthetically pleasing reports should include proper alignments and should make appropriate use of white space, borders, shading, and color. The purpose of most reports is to support decision making, and improving the appearance of the report can often help to draw the attention of the decision maker to the most relevant data items (and can avoid distracting the recipient).

For example, inserting a blank row above and/or underlining a very important financial statement amount naturally attracts the gaze of the reader. I’m an admitted direct communicator, being very specific when I provide positive or negative feedback to report preparers (and now students). During my professional career, I became notorious for occasionally remarking “this report hurts my eyes” when I was particularly frustrated with the design of a draft report that I was reviewing. In short, the appearance principle is intended to not “hurt the eyes” of report recipients.

The sample report is lacking in various appearance attributes. The report includes no lines or bolding that would help draw the attention of recipients to important data. It wouldn’t be uncommon, for example, to include lines beneath the column headers and above the column totals so that the titles and totals appear separated from the central content of the report. Additional white space, borders, shading, and color could be applied in this sample report to better direct attention and to support decision making. Also related to appearance, amounts included in reports should be right-aligned rather than left-aligned. Use of the “accounting” cell format in Microsoft Excel will replace the zeros with dashes, which often results in a more pleasing report appearance. The needed corrections to the sample report related to appearance are shown in Figure 4.

4. EFFICIENCY

The efficiency principle involves ensuring that a standard report can be prepared as quickly and easily as possible. This often means utilizing automated or formulaic fields where possible. This will help to minimize the data entry and computations necessary for the preparation of reports. If possible, building reports to extract data directly from the underlying accounting system, both for labels and amounts, can create the greatest efficiency. In one of my prior professional positions, where a legacy, homegrown accounting system with poor reporting capabilities was used, we created higher-quality reports with many automated fields using Microsoft Access. The reports then extracted data from SQL tables that were created in a nightly download from the accounting system.

In one case, that allowed us to essentially automate about two-thirds of the organization’s annual reporting, which had previously been prepared by continuously updating numerous large Excel files (a process that was slow, labor-intensive, and ripe for errors). And efficiency should relate not only to the preparation of reports but also to the use of reports where helping to ensure that relevant decisions are supported efficiently is important.

Again, the sample report reveals a variety of efficiency problems. First, because it was observed earlier that the total for the legal stock was incorrect, it would seem that formulas aren’t being used for the total row of the report. Microsoft Excel offers a variety of powerful formulas and functions that can improve reporting efficiency, the most basic of which is to include a summing formula in the total row. (More complicated formulas, lookups, and pivot functions can add tremendous efficiency for reports generated using Microsoft Excel.)

Related to efficiency of use, it isn’t at all clear in the sample report what decision process it’s intended to support. Inclusion of some additional information related to the totals might make the report more efficient to use. For example, it was noted earlier that the purpose of the report was for the internal service center to request reimbursement for the paper provided to each consumer group. That purpose could be better demonstrated in the report itself to avoid recipients making either no use or inefficient use of the report. Figure 5 illustrates the efficiency issues described for this sample report.

5. USABILITY

The usability principle relates very specifically to decision support for the report recipients. It involves considering how the report will be disseminated. In that regard, report data should be organized to allow for easy extraction by recipients. It should also be easily understandable given the specific background(s) of the recipients. My professional experience included working for a scientific organization, a manufacturing organization, and a healthcare/education organization. Each of those industries involved specialized vernacular that may not have been understandable to the general public. As such, it was always important that I considered the backgrounds of the specific recipient(s) for each report that I was preparing or reviewing and ensured that the format and terminology would be understandable.

Reports should also be formatted for duplication, where appropriate, or for posting to websites (to be accessible using a variety of electronic devices and a variety of internet browsers). For example, whereas use of shading and color may be deemed worthwhile to improve the appearance of a report, it might make the report less suited for duplication.

The sample report is again lacking in terms of usability. It was noted earlier that the report was intended to request reimbursement for paper supplied by the service center, and including a column for the amount requested would serve that purpose. But the report would be more usable if it also somehow indicated the basis for determining the amount requested from each consumer department, perhaps by indicating the fee or reimbursement rate per ream of each type of paper.

Rearranging the order of the rows to be alphabetical might also allow each recipient to more quickly identify the amount owed by his or her department. The report might be considered more usable or understandable if the column labels were changed to reflect common descriptions for the types of paper rather than paper weights and sizes and to include some notation of the quantity included in a ream of each type of paper (which often varies). The usability concerns for the sample report are noted in Figure 6.

THE SOLUTION

While reporting style preferences will vary and reports won’t always be perfect, greater attention to these principles should allow accounting professionals and students alike to improve the quality of reporting. In addressing the problems related to the five principles, the revised sample report presented in Figure 7 is substantially improved.

The specific style of this revised report may not align with the preferences of other preparers, but the generalities of the five principles of report design should be universal. Reporting quality improves when preparers give proper consideration to accuracy, consistency, appearance, efficiency, and usability, and this article should serve as a useful guide, particularly for students and young professionals developing their reporting skills.

About the Authors

Publication Highlights

Access: Using Excel’s PMT Function in Access

Explore more.

Copyright Footer Message

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet