Article types and research proposals
A format matched to the contribution
Soorathep Kheawhom
A format matched to the contribution
New evidence supports a research article or communication.
Critical synthesis supports a review.
An argued direction may support a perspective.
Reusable data support a data paper.
A testable future plan supports a research proposal.
Five formats and their central questions
| Format | Reader’s central question |
|---|---|
| Review | What does the body of evidence establish? |
| Communication / Letter | What focused new result matters now? |
| Perspective | Which direction deserves investigation, and why? |
| Data paper | Can I understand, trust and reuse this dataset? |
| Research proposal | Can this plan test an important question? |
A review needs a synthesis method
Define the question and boundaries.
Document the search and selection approach.
Compare studies on compatible bases.
Explain agreements, conflicts and evidence gaps.
Cross-study comparison needs context
| Study | Conversion (%) | T (°C) | Pressure | Test duration |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | 75 | 350 | 1 bar | 8 h |
| B | 82 | 400 | 5 bar | 2 h |
| C | 70 | 330 | 1 bar | 100 h |
Synthetic studies. Feed composition, residence time and normalization also differ or remain unspecified.
A communication needs a complete focused argument
A narrow claim can fit a short format.
Essential controls and limitations still belong in the paper.
Length limits and urgency criteria depend on the journal.
Correspondence comments on published work and serves another purpose.
A perspective develops an evidence-based position
State the position and intended audience.
Use evidence to explain why the direction matters.
Address plausible counterarguments.
Separate established findings from proposed directions.
A data paper makes a dataset reusable
Document acquisition and processing.
Provide variable definitions, units and identifiers.
Demonstrate technical quality and known limits.
Explain access, versioning and reuse conditions.
One result, different writing tasks
Research article: test the catalyst modification with adequate controls.
Review: explain why comparable studies disagree about deactivation.
Proposal: test whether the modification changes the rate of deactivation.
The format follows the contribution and the available evidence.
A proposal links a hypothesis to a decision
Question: does the modification slow deactivation?
Hypothesis: the modified catalyst loses activity more slowly.
Test: compare independent batches under controlled feeds.
Decision: estimate a degradation-rate difference and its uncertainty.
Controls and feasibility belong in the proposal
Check transport effects before interpreting intrinsic kinetics.
Plan independent batches and justify sample size.
Define calibration, exclusion and analysis procedures.
State milestones, risks and a feasible fallback.
Workshop: choose a defensible format
Groups, 8 minutes. Use Worksheet 3A.
Classify four research situations.
Give one reason and one missing requirement for each.
Identify a plausible alternative format.
A one-page proposal outline
Question and current evidence gap
Hypothesis and primary outcome
Experimental design and comparison basis
Analysis, uncertainty and decision rule
Feasibility, risk and fallback
Proposal clinic
Write a 90-second pitch from your outline.
A partner identifies the strongest alternative explanation.
Revise the control or measurement that addresses it.
A proposal needs a result that could refute it
Hypothesis: the modification reduces the deactivation rate.
Primary comparison: rate difference between independent catalyst batches under matched conditions.
If the uncertainty still includes no meaningful improvement, the result does not support the engineering claim.
Define a meaningful effect and analysis plan before collecting data.
Common mismatches
A literature list without synthesis is an incomplete review.
A short manuscript still needs adequate evidence.
A dataset without metadata is hard to reuse.
A proposal needs a test and a criterion for interpreting results.
Exit ticket & anonymous feedback
3 minutes
One concept check
One evidence-based reflection
One point that is still unclear
seminar3-cheme-feedback.soorathep-k.chatgpt.site/session/3
Exit ticket: student ID optional. Feedback: no name or student ID.
Reading and policy sources
I&EC Research: Author Guidelines
Scientific Data: Submission Guidelines
Organic Process Research & Development: Author Guidelines