Writing Human Factors Research Papers

A Guidebook

Don Harris

• Publisher: CRC Press
• Year: 2016
• Print ISBN: 9781409439998
• eBook ISBN: 9781351870825
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Technology & Engineering
• Subtopic: Authorship
• Index: Technology & Engineering

Writing high-quality papers suitable for publication within international scientific journals is now an essential skill for all early-career researchers; their career progression and the reputation of the department in which they work depends upon it. However, many manuscripts are rejected or sent back for major re-working not because the science they contain is in any way 'bad', but because the same problems keep occurring in the way that the material is presented. It is one thing to write a good scientific paper, however it is quite another thing to get it published. This requires some additional nous. In writing this book Don Harris draws upon nearly a quarter of a century of experience as an author and reviewer of research papers, and ultimately as a journal editor. By his own admission, it contains all the things he wished that his mentors had told him 25 years ago, but didn't. The material in the book is drawn from many years of finding all these things out for himself, usually by trial and error (but mostly error!). The text adopts a much lighter touch than is normally found in books of this type - after all, who really wants to read a book about writing research papers? The author describes his own unique approach to writing journal papers (which, in his own words, has proved to be extremely successful). All major points are illustrated with examples from his own, published works. The book is written in the form of a manual for constructing a journal manuscript: read a chapter, write a section. However, the material it contains goes beyond just this and also describes how to select a target journal, the manuscript submission process, what referees are looking for in a good journal paper, and how to deal with the referees' comments. Each chapter concludes with a checklist to ensure all the key elements have been addressed.

Chapter 1
Before You Start (Writing...)

Although it is a little unusual, it is necessary to make it clear right from the start what this book is not about. This book is not about how to do good Human Factors research, nor is it about how to analyse such research. It is assumed that both of these things are already in place. What this book is concerned with is how to prepare successful research papers of a quality fit for publication in an academic journal. If you do not have any high quality research upon which to base your paper (or papers) then not even the most accomplished author in the world will be able to produce a manuscript fit for printing in a journal. There is an old saying: 'you can't polish a turd'. Unfortunately, though, some potential authors believe that if you roll it in glitter this will be enough to assure its publication. It won't...

In over 25 years of refereeing Human Factors manuscripts and as a journal editor, the majority of the manuscripts that I have seen rejected have not been declined on the basis of the basic quality of the scientific work in them. Although in most of these cases the work has not been Earth shattering, it has been more than satisfactory. The reason why many manuscripts are rejected is simply because their content is not presented in a manner suitable for publication. Put another way, many authors with one kiss of their pen, can successfully turn Princes (or Princesses) into frogs. This book aims to set out one method by which authors will be able to present the story describing their research in such a manner that will satisfy most journal reviewers and editors. And it should be emphasised that writing a research paper is (in many ways) telling a story. Stories are good to read, and like a story, a research paper should have a beginning, a middle and an end, and it should progress logically. However, unlike most good novels there should be no surprises at its conclusion.

In the following chapters I hope to set out a recipe that any first time writer of a Human Factors paper can follow. Not every suggestion or sub-heading is applicable to every manuscript (use all content judiciously). However, by working through each chapter in the book and assessing your progress against the checklist at the end, a half-decent paper should emerge. This is very much writing by numbers, but it is a method that has worked for me and has proven to be successful. I am, however, still waiting to receive my first Nobel Prize.

Why Should You Write Papers?

There is no one answer to this question. However for any scientist, writing high quality journal papers can only be considered to be 'a good thing'. If you intend to make a career in the university or research sector then journal papers are essential to ensure career progression; it is part of your job. As a post-graduate student, an emerging publication record will considerably aid you in finding your first professional post.

It you are currently undertaking a PhD don't start writing papers after you have completed your thesis (despite what your supervisor may say). Write them while you are doing your research. Many PhD theses consist of at least two interrelated studies. Write up the first study while you are doing the second study. After you have submitted your manuscript you will receive comments back from the referees concerning all the aspects of your work (literature covered; analysis of results; their interpretation; presentation of the work, etc.). These are useful comments to incorporate into your thesis - think of them as corrections avoided. Furthermore, you get feedback (for free) on the adequacy of your work from two (or more) international experts in your particular area of Human Factors. And, if/when you get your paper accepted, it is worth listing the published papers derived from the work at the front of your thesis. This will make it very hard for any examiner to fail it on the basis of the scientific quality of the work. However, this is not to say that only papers derived from PhD studies are of the appropriate quality to publish in academic journals. Many Masters students that I have supervised have also had their work published.

From the viewpoint of any academic department, publishing papers in high quality journals is now essential. University (and hence departmental income) is dependent upon the grading of research quality (for example, as assessed in audits such as the UK University Research Assessment Exercise/Research Excellence Framework - see http://www.rae.ac.uk/ or http:// www.hefce.ac.uk/research/ref/). Universities cannot afford to have research inactive members of staff at any level. This costs money. Attracting new students and future research income is based upon the reputation of the department, and the reputation of the department is a product of the people in it. The same is also true of governmental and private research laboratories.

If the work has been undertaken on a research or governmental grant there is often an expectation that it will lead to Journal papers. Not only do research councils like to see their funded work disseminated, it also gives these bodies confidence that the work they have underwritten is of appropriate scientific quality. The manuscript referees are effectively an independent audit source. Failure to get work published in these circumstances may adversely affect future grant applications. In short, a department cannot afford for its staff not to publish.

However, there are much, much more compelling reasons to publish your work. The first thing that usually comes out of any research programme is some kind of technical report for the sponsor (or a PhD thesis). This is then often consigned to 'shelfware'; that graveyard for many academic endeavours. But research is there to be used: publishing is a way that maximises its chances of being used by someone in the research community. Furthermore, seeing your research paper published makes you feel good. It is extremely satisfying to see your name in print (and it still is, even 25 years later)! The feeling never goes away no matter how many papers you publish. The only feeling better than holding your first paper in your hand (none of this electronic rubbish...) is seeing your name on the spine of a book. In the ranks of academia nothing can replace a little self-massaging of the ego. After all, no one else will do it for you.

Some Examples

Throughout the book I continually draw upon illustrations from several papers (on which I was one of the authors) that have been successfully published. Some complete papers (with commentary) are contained in the Appendices. I do not use my own work simply out of vanity. However, in this way throughout the book I can illustrate my thinking and the writing processes behind the papers that I have had a hand in constructing. I don't claim that my approach is the very best way of doing it - I do know that it is good enough to get published, though. Furthermore, by utilising examples and extracts from some of my own past papers I also don't have to pay publishers for the rights to reproduce them.

In Appendix 1 I have included a paper that I wrote with a colleague over a decade ago (Harris and Maxwell, 2001: 'Some Considerations for the Development of Effective Countermeasures to Aircrew use of Alcohol While Flying', which was published in the International Journal of Aviation Psychology). This work illustrates some of the problems and (my) solutions to the reporting of survey-based research.

Structure is everything when trying to get your message across. In Appendix 21 have included a paper which is a little unusual as it has three parts to it, each written up as a mini-study (Harris, Chan-Pensley and McGarry, 2005, previously published in Ergonomics). Doing it this way helped to simplify and clarify the message in the paper both for the writer and the reader. Doing simple things to structure the paper, such as providing appropriate headings and sub-headings, also helps to guide the reader.

Both of the previous papers are survey-based works which use a number of tables and figures to summarise the data and which also contain a range of fairly complex statistical analyses. They were chosen deliberately for exactly these reasons. Huddlestone and Harris (2007), included in Appendix 3 (previously published in Human Factors and Aerospace Safety) is a completely different beast in that it uses qualitative data analysed without the use of numeric, statistical analyses. The reporting of qualitative research poses very different challenges to those faced by authors describing a study utilising numerical data.

Finally, Appendix 4 (Demagalski, Harris and Gautrey, 2002, also published in Human Factors and Aerospace Safety) contains a paper that employed an experimental approach for data collection, albeit one that used an engineering flight simulator and a number of complex flight tasks. The data are analysed using fairly conventional statistical analyses.

It is hoped that these four papers contain a reasonably wide range of approaches to illustrate the issues discussed in this book. Extracts from other papers are also included, as needed. These also provide a bit of variety. Please feel free to download copies of these from the publishers. If you get to the end of this book you will see why.

Have You Got Something to Say?

If you have got this far then it is safe to assume that you still have the desire to publish something. But have you got anything to say?

One of the most common excuses I used to hear for not publishing (apart from 'I'm too busy') was that the person didn't have anything interesting to write about. But there is usually something useful to say in any piece of research. What these people usually meant was either 'I don't think that I have enough to say' or 'I don't think that I have anything interesting to say'. They were usually wrong on at least one of these accounts.

One of the biggest mistakes when writing any paper is trying to say too much. The starting point for any journal paper is the results contained in it. Just select one or two results from your work that are theoretically (and maybe practically) interesting and which taken together make a relatively simple argument. If you want to tell a larger story, then consider releasing your work as a series of interrelated papers (or maybe a two-part paper if it is not too long).

Your 'Big Message' and Your Story

This introduces the first important points in writing any good scientific journal paper. To start off with you need a message and a story to tell. Your first consideration should be what is the 'Big Message' in your paper? Writing a journal paper is a little like writing a story in a newspaper: it has to have an 'angle' to it. 'Dog bites man': not interesting. 'Man bites dog' might be interesting, but you never read about the aeroplane that didn't crash or the politician's legitimate expenses claims. However, in this case you need a scientific angle. It need not be revolutionary but in some way it has to be new.

To illustrate, the 'Big Message' in your paper should be simple and easy to understand. It should implicitly run right the way through the manuscript. In Harris and Maxwell (2001) this 'Big Message' can simply be summarised as:

• You need to use the right countermeasures to reduce the likelihood of drinking and flying otherwise all your efforts will go to waste - different people drink and fly for different reasons.

From this point you then need to reduce the whole story that will run throughout the paper to just five or six bullet points. In this drinking and flying paper these were:

• Drinking and flying is undesirable - new regulations are on the horizon (at the time of writing).
• A great deal is known from the development of drinking and driving countermeasures but these have never been applied to aviation.
• Effective countermeasures depend upon the reasons for the underlying offending behaviour.
• A survey of 400+ pilots identified four theoretically recognisable factors for drinking and flying countermeasures: Education; Enforcement; Counselling; Sanctions.
• Different countermeasures were rated as being more likely to be effective in different groups of pilot (defined by licence type and drink/flying category).
• The results support specific deterrence theory (this was the main scientific 'hook').

My preferred modus operandi from this point is to print out these bullet points in a large font and pin them to the wall above the desk where I work. From this point everything that I write should help to tell the story encapsulated in them. Equally importantly, there should be nothing in the manuscript that does not follow directly from these notes. Brevity is a virtue in academic writing.

You have to remember that when writing for a scientific journal the manuscript must have a strong theoretical basis to it even if it is a paper with heavy emphasis on the practical application of scientific principles. Papers where the overriding emphasis is on practical application may be acceptable to some journals as a practitioner (rather than a scientific) paper.

Writing for Your Reader

Throughout the book I will constantly (perhaps irritatingly) keep referring to 'the reader' or 'your reader'. This is completely intentional. You always write for your reader and so you must consistently put yourself in the place of this fictitious person.

You can assume that your reader is an intelligent reader, with a good grasp of the fundamental issues and methods underpinning the science of Human Factors. If you are writing for a Journal focussed on research in a particular domain (e.g. Defence or Aerospace) you can probably also assume at least a basic knowledge of the application area. However, while it is important not to 'talk down' to your reader, don't expect too much of them. With the possible exception of your referees, most readers will be nowhere near as familiar as you with the issues in your research. A brief explanation of a few key issues can often go a long way to promoting understanding.

The first readers that you need to be aware of when writing are the manuscript referees. If you can't satisfy these readers then you don't need to worry about any others. The referees are critical readers who want to ensure the scientific integrity of your paper and ensure that it is clear and concise. While at first most referees' comments appear to be an attempt to torpedo your hard work and ensure that it never sees the light of day, a good referee will ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Figures
• List of Tables
• Acknowledgements
• About the Author
• Preface
• Endorsements
• Chapter 1 Before You Start (Writing...)
• Interlude I: A Few Short Observations on Structure and Style
• Chapter 2 Writing the Results Section
• Chapter 3 Writing the Method Section
• Interlude II: A Very Short Observation on Authorship
• Chapter 4 Writing the Introduction (Part One)
• Chapter 5 Writing the Discussion Section
• Chapter 6 Writing the Introduction (Part Two)
• Chapter 7 Writing the Title, Abstract and Keywords
• Interlude III: Some Different Types of Paper
• Chapter 8 Formatting and Submitting your Manuscript
• Interlude IV: Top 10 Mistakes
• Chapter 9 The Manuscript Review Process
• Chapter 10 Responding to Referees' Comments
• Interlude V: A Well Kept Secret — You May Be Eligible For Some Money!
• Chapter 11 A Few Final Thoughts
• References
• Preface to Appendices
• Appendix 1: Harris and Maxwell (2001)
• Appendix 2: Harris, Chan-Pensley and McGarry (2005)
• Appendix 3: Huddlestone and Harris (2007)
• Appendix 4: Demagalski, Harris and Gautrey (2002)
• Index