<figure><img src="image_49.png" /><figcaption>Figure 5-2. Selective reading algorithm</figcaption></figure>

2. Read the abstracts and keywords of the articles found in Step 1.

a. If an article aligns with the research topic, move to the next step.

b. If not, discard the article, end.
3. Read the conclusion.

a. If the conclusion presents findings relevant to the research problem, proceed to the next step.

b. If not, discard the article, end.

4. Read the entire article, end.

Throughout the process, the list of keywords used at the beginning should be refined based on new findings. The goal is to narrow the scope of the research as much as possible, which is crucial when defining the research problem.

It is also helpful to search for other works by the same author. If an article proves to be valuable, it is likely that the author has published additional works on the same topic. These other works may offer further useful insights and findings.

**Reference management**

Effective organisation is essential for successful research. This applies not only to following the steps
of the research method but also to managing the data
collected throughout the process.

Even with selective reading, the amount of data
gathered from references can be overwhelming. To
properly define a research problem, around fifty
articles are typically required, and this number can
grow fast based on the depth of the research. Thus,
relying on memory alone is insufficient.

Additionally, researchers should avoid repeating the
same search. For instance, if it takes 30 minutes to
find the definition of a specific term, that information
should be recorded so that the definition can be
retrieved later without repeating the same search.

Since the 2000s, reference management has been
fully automated through software like Mendeley.<fnref n="105" />

<footnote n="105">¹⁰⁵ It is a proprietary reference management software, developed by Paul Foeckler, Victor Henning, and Jan Reichelt in 2008, and is currently maintained by Elsevier, see https://www.mendeley.com/. Other examples include BibDesk, available at https://bibdesk.sourceforge.io, and Papers, accessible at https://papersapp.com.</footnote>
The key is to understand how these systems operate. Once this is clear, using any reference management software becomes straightforward. This section focuses solely on storing data gathered from references.

The data is stored in a database in the form of tables. Homogeneous data is stored in the same table. For example, one table will contain references, and another will store quotations.

Each individual entry in these tables is known as a record, which can be visualised like Post-it notes (Figure 5-3). Entries from different tables can be linked, making the database relational.

<figure><img src="image_50.png" /><figcaption>a) Reference record</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_51.png" /><figcaption>b) Quotation record</figcaption></figure>

Figure 5-3. Comparison between reference and quotation records

A reference record is used to store all relevant details about a specific scientific source, such as a book or
journal article. This information can include, but is
not limited to: title, author, publication year,
publisher, and identifiers (e.g., ISBN)<fnref n="106" />. Each
reference record must also have its own unique ID.

The second type of record is for storing quotations.
This includes the quoted text from the source, the
reference ID, and the page number where the quote
was found. The reference ID links to the reference
record of the source. Each quotation record must also
have its own unique ID, providing numeric reference
to the quotation card.

In this setup, reference records are grouped and
stored in the Reference table, while quotation
records are stored in the Quotation table.
Relationships are then created between the records
in these two tables. It is important to note that this is
a deliberately simplified structure. In practice,
authors and publishers would have their own

<footnote n="106">¹⁰⁶ The International Standard Book Number (ISBN), a 13-digit unique identifier assigned to specific editions of books.</footnote>
separate tables, leading to a larger and more
complex database.

For example, Figure (5-3) illustrates how records are
related when storing the definition of science
discussed earlier in Chapter 3:

* The reference record has the ID R15, where "R" represents reference. This record also contains details about the book, such as the title, author, and ISBN. It may also include additional information like the type of work, in this case: a book and the publisher's name.

* The quotation record is labelled Q3, with "Q" representing quotation. The record contains the quoted text and the page number where the quotation was found. It also includes the reference ID: R15, which links back to the reference record for the book where the quotation was sourced.
<figure><img src="image_52.png" /><figcaption>Figure 5-4. Example of reference management</figcaption></figure>

## Searching for a research problem

Researchers can identify research problems by observing the physical world around them. Significant problems often arise from keen observation.

An example of research problem defined by observation is the spaghetti stick challenge, proposed by Richard Feynman<fnref n="107" /> While cooking in his kitchen, Feynman noticed that it was almost impossible to break a dry spaghetti noodle into just two pieces. This seemingly simple puzzle remained unsolved

<footnote n="107">¹⁰⁷ Richard Phillips Feynman (1918–1988), an American theoretical physicist who won the Noble Prize in Physics in 1965. He is best known for his contributions to the Manhattan Project, which developed the first atomic bomb, and for his pioneering work in quantum mechanics.</footnote>
until 2005, demonstrating the value of sharp observational skills in research.<fnref n="108" />

In addition to observation, there are several ways that can help in identifying a research problem:

1. Most companies or enterprises have research and development teams. A useful approach is to email them, inquiring about specific problems they are addressing and whether they have explored potential solutions. It is also appreciable to propose initial ideas and offer assistance.

2. Contacting public or private research institutions, especially those focused on solving the problem of interest. They may be seeking researchers to further investigate the issue.

<footnote n="108">¹⁰⁸ The solution was published in an article titled: "Fragmentation of Rods by Cascading Cracks: Why Spaghetti Does Not Break in Half", see [ARE15] for details.</footnote>
3. Reaching out to other researchers or experts working in the same field asking questions about their initial findings. The authors' contact details are usually available at the top of their articles, as discussed earlier. Additionally, looking for open questions in the conclusions of the articles is another possible way.

4. Attending conferences related to the problem is a valuable opportunity to meet and discuss with other researchers working in the field. If attending is not possible, reviewing the conference proceedings, which document the ideas discussed during the event, can be equally helpful.

Three out of the four approaches mentioned above involve sending a message or email to communicate. Therefore, another essential soft skill is the ability to write formal and well-structured messages.
An effective message should include the following elements:

* A brief self-introduction at the beginning, with links to the researcher's previous work, if available.

* A concise and well-described explanation of the message's purpose.

* Contact information, such as phone number, and postal address.

Regardless of the starting point, the researcher should proceed by using a general research search engine, like Google Scholar<sup>109</sup>, or domain-specific search engines. At this early stage, the research problem should be described using three or four key terms, then searched, followed by selective reading of the results.

At this point, it is crucial to use both selective reading and proper reference management. Selective reading

<footnote n="109"><sup>109</sup> Available at https://scholar.google.com/.</footnote>
ensures that only the most relevant materials are reviewed, while reference management helps to organise the knowledge gathered efficiently.

There are two components of scientific work that guide the process at this stage:

1. **References**, by expanding the scope of the research. When initiating a study, it is important for the researcher to begin broadly.

2. **Keywords**, by narrowing the focus of the research, serving the opposite purpose of references. It is logical that the research domain is broad, and one of the key objectives is to scope down the research as much as possible.

The diamond model illustrated in Figure 5-5 visually represents this process.
<figure><img src="image_53.png" /><figcaption>Figure 5-5. Diamond model for defining problems</figcaption></figure>

When a researcher begins to seek something new, such as a specific problem or concept, the initial approach should be broad. Once sufficient information has been gathered and the problem is well-understood, the goal is to narrow the focus and concentrate on defining the problem itself.

Unfortunately, there is no definitive moment for this transition, it is entirely based on practical experience. The more a researcher engages with the diamond model, the more familiar he becomes with it, gaining insight into when to stop broadening their research and when to refine it.
# Defining the research problem

Defining a research problem is a lengthy process and cannot be achieved in a short period of time. Quick and methods with shortcuts are often unreliable and can lead to mistakes in identifying the problem. Rushed research usually results in finding problems in defined problem.

The more a researcher reads about the problem, the deeper his understanding becomes, which in turn improves the ability to accurately describe and define the problem.

A research problem can be well-defined in two keyways:

1. **By context**, it involves clarifying what aspects are relevant to the problem and what should be excluded, helping to set boundaries by identifying what to address and what not to.

2. **By syntax**, focusing on defining the problem itself, without considering its broader
context. There are three approaches to
achieve this:

I. **Using description**, the simplest method, where the problem is directly described with short sentences.

II. **Using questions**, this method involves formulating specific questions that the research will aim to answer. It is more challenging than description for two reasons:

o The questions must be well-defined. Otherwise, they can mislead the research away from the core problem.

o The questions must be organised logically into groups or categories, so they form coherent units, with each addressing a specific aspect of the problem.
III. **Using hypotheses**, this is the most complex approach. According to the scientific method discussed in Chapter 4, particularly in Step 8 (retesting), hypotheses can be formulated when the researcher starts based on others' work. Implicitly, this means the researcher has already some hypothesis to test using theories proposed by the other researchers.

The following subsections will explore both keyways of defining a research problem, providing detailed examples for each.

**Defining by context**

When defining a problem by context, the key is to distinguish the problem from its surrounding elements. This involves identifying what is part of the problem and what is not. Defining by context does not require addressing every aspect of the problem,
but the more aspects covered, the less ambiguous
the problem becomes to tackle.

Time aspect

The first aspect to consider is time. The researcher
can select a specific time period to focus the problem,
which is particularly useful when the time span is
large and includes significant technological changes.
The aim is to narrow the timeframe to ensure that the
data collected is comparable.

For example, when studying how travel affects
people's lives, it is impossible to cover all human
history in the same way. In the Middle Ages, it was
common for people to be born, live, and die in the
same town or village, as travel was difficult and
dangerous. This cannot be compared to travel in the
2010s, where people can travel to the other side of
the world in less than a day. A practical method
would be to divide human history into periods based
on the evolution of travel technology. The researcher
could then choose two periods, apply a research method, and compare the results.

Another example is the data sources on the Internet. Before mid-2000s, when social media platforms were not yet widespread, the nature of data available online was vastly different. A study of internet data would consider the rise of social networks as a key turning point. Before this, most data were in text form forums and blogs, while after the social media revolution, data became more personal and included more multimedia.

## Location aspect

The second aspect to consider is the location or setting where the problem occurs. This could involve restricting the problem to a specific geographical area or focusing on a particular group of people.
An excellent example is the study of gender gaps,<fnref n="110" /> where defining the problem's scope by location can be helpful. For instance, when examining the gender gap on English Wikipedia,<fnref n="111" /> the problem has already been limited in two ways:

1. The focus is restricted to Wikipedia, excluding data from other parts of the Internet.

2. The study is further narrowed to English Wikipedia, meaning it only involves English-speaking contributors.

## Sources aspect

The third aspect can be a valuable tool when conducting a comparative study. The problem can be defined by focusing on specific sources.

<footnote n="110">¹¹⁰ A gender gap refers to the unequal differences between men and women in various areas of society, such as culture and the economy.</footnote>

<footnote n="111">¹¹¹ A 2021 study analysing the content of English Wikipedia in 2017 revealed that only 17% of the biographies published in the encyclopaedia were about women [ARE15].</footnote>
For instance, consider a study on colonialism<sup>112</sup> from the native perspective. In this case, the research framework is already established, limiting the study's boundaries to a specific source: the native people. Since the study is not comparative, the researcher should focus solely on sources created by native individuals.

In such studies, concerns may arise regarding bias and objectivity. The researcher must clarify why only these particular sources were selected and acknowledge the existence of other perspectives that are beyond the scope of the current research.

Using the gender gap in English Wikipedia as an example again. Sources, in this case, can be limited to English-language sources, non-English sources, or any specific language. Whatever the choice is, the researcher needs to:

<footnote n="112"><sup>112</sup> The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy defines colonialism as: "The practice of domination, which involves the subjugation of one people by another". See [WEB07] for details.</footnote>
* Provide a detailed justification for the choice, demonstrating that it is deliberate and not random.

* Ensure there are sufficient sources related to the chosen language, so that the research is not negatively impacted by the selection.

## Define by syntax

Defining a problem by syntax involves focusing on the problem itself, rather than what separates it from its surroundings. As previously discussed, there are three methods for defining by syntax: through questions, description, or hypotheses.

Regardless of the method chosen, there must always be a central or core idea that all the information revolves around. This could be a key question, if defining by questions, a main statement, if using description, or a core hypothesis, if using hypotheses.
Defining by syntax implicitly states that research
cannot begin from nothing. It is advisable that the
core idea builds upon existing work in the field. This
does not mean that a researcher cannot challenge
something they believe is invalid.<fnref n="113" /> Rather, it
acknowledges that each research domain follows a
general direction shaped by ongoing work. This
direction is not fixed, it evolves slowly over time. A
single piece of research cannot shift the entire course
of a field due to the vastness of the scientific
community. However, individual studies can
contribute small changes, which, over time, may
influence the broader direction.

Using description and questions

Defining the problem by descriptions is similar to
defining by questions, with a major difference: The

<footnote n="113">¹¹³ It is strongly advised for early-career researchers to avoid challenging scientific consensus unless there is substantial evidence, supported by experts in the field. While it is not impossible to demonstrate that the scientific community has accepted invalid ideas about something, it is uncommon due to the inherently cautious and skeptical nature of science.</footnote>
syntax in the first way is a full sentence, while in the second it is a question. Table 5-1 shows how to define the problem in the gender gap using description and questions.

<table><caption>Table 5-1. Defining the gender gap research problem through description and questions</caption><thead><tr><td>Defining by description</td><td>Defining by questions</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>In this study, the researcher aims to explore the following aspects:<br/>a. The potential relationship between gender and the number of biographies on English Wikipedia.<br/>b. The different types of gender gaps within the context of English Wikipedia, such as the gap in biographies by subject area.<br/>c. The similarities and differences between various types of gender gaps.<br/>d. The characteristics of the gender gap, with a particular focus on the gap related to biographies of women.</td><td>In this study, the researcher will seek to answer the following questions:<br/>a. Is there a relationship between gender and the number of biographies on English Wikipedia?<br/>b. What types of gender gaps exist, and is there a connection between the type of gap and the context in English Wikipedia?<br/>c. What are the differences and similarities between the various gender gaps?<br/>d. Does the issue have specific characteristics, or does it follow a consistent pattern whenever it is identified?</td></tr></tbody></table>
## Using hypotheses

Using description and questions is generally more suitable for descriptive research methods, whereas hypotheses are better suited to inductive research methods. Defining a research problem through a hypothesis is the most complex method, as it demands a thorough understanding of the research field.

When defining a problem with a hypothesis, the researcher focuses on identifying relationships between two or more variables and investigates how they influence each other. This relationship must be articulated as a statement, which will then be tested in the course of the research.

There are various types of relationships between variables. Below is a non-exhaustive list of some commonly used relationships:

* **Causal relationship:** In its simplest form, this involves two variables, A and B. Variable A
causes Variable B to exist or prevents it
from existing.

* **Direct proportional relationship:** When Variable A increases, Variable B also increases, and similarly, when Variable A decreases, Variable B decreases.

* **Inverse proportional relationship:** When Variable A increases, Variable B decreases, and conversely, when Variable A decreases, Variable B increases.

When formulating a hypothesis, the following guidelines should be kept in mind:

* A hypothesis should a stand-alone statement based on either simple or complex scientific facts. If the hypothesis is too broad, it should be broken down into smaller, testable hypotheses, with each tested individually.

* The hypothesis must be expressed in the present tense, as it represents a claim to be tested in the next step of research. This differs
from defining a problem using descriptions or questions, which can be written in past, present, or future tenses.

* A hypothesis should offer detailed, definitive options, such as whether something exists or does not exist. It should specify whether a relationship between variables is present or absent. While not limited to two variables, a hypothesis must cover all possible outcomes with a finite set of options.

* A hypothesis must have a practical implementation that can be tested. In Part I, it was noted that a hypothesis is closely tied to physical reality, whereas theories are more abstract. Therefore, when developing a hypothesis that links two or more variables, the researcher must ensure that these variables can be observed and measured in the real world, allowing the hypothesis to be tested and not remain theoretical.
* A solid hypothesis should be able to predict future outcomes based on current and previous data.<fnref n="114" />

* A hypothesis needs also to be simple and understandable. While research can include multiple hypotheses, it is generally recommended to focus on a single hypothesis per study to direct efforts effectively. If several hypotheses are necessary, a suggested approach is to have one central hypothesis as the foundation, supported by smaller, related hypotheses.

The first example focuses on a hypothesis<fnref n="115" /> involving three variables in direct proportion, using the gender gap in English Wikipedia as the problem to be studied.

<footnote n="114">¹¹⁴ This is not astrology or fortune-telling. For more on this topic, refer to Chapter 2.</footnote>

<footnote n="115">¹¹⁵ The two hypotheses presented as examples are intentionally oversimplified for the sake of clarity. They can be critiqued or further refined.</footnote>
The first variable is the total number of articles in English Wikipedia, while the second and third variables are the number of biographies of men and women. These variables will then be examined over time. The data will include the number of articles each month from January 2012 to January 2022 (Table 5-2).

<table><caption>Table 5-2. Time-based table for variables value</caption><thead><tr><td>Month (yr)</td><td># bio ♂</td><td># bio ♀</td><td>Ratio</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Jan (12)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Feb (12)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Mar (12)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Apr (12)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>May (12)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Jun (12)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Jul (12)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Aug (12)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Sep (12)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Oct (12)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Nov (12)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Dec (12)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Jan (22)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

The hypothesis states that the ratio between the number of women's biographies and men's biographies remains constant. In other words, if you divide the number of women's biographies by the number of men's biographies, the result will remain the same, regardless of how much the English Wikipedia grows.

This hypothesis can be expressed as:
> The total number of biographies is directly proportional to the number of women's biographies, as the size of English Wikipedia increases from January 2012 to January 2022, measured on a monthly basis

This is a hypothesis, a claim that will be tested later. Even if it turns out to be invalid, it is still important to understand why and explore any possible patterns or hidden relationships between variables.

The second example presents a hypothesis suggesting a causal relationship between two variables. It is based on the idea that the gender gap may vary depending on age. For certain age groups, there might be no gap at all, while for others, the gap could significantly reduce.

To formulate the hypothesis, only two variables will be used: the number of biographies of women and the number of biographies of men. The collected data
will be categorised into five groups as follows (Table 5-3):

1. Individuals under 18 years old.

2. Individuals aged 18 to 39.

3. Individuals aged 40 to 59.

4. Individuals aged 60 and above.

5. Deceased individuals.

<table><caption>Table 5-3. Age-based table for variables value</caption><thead><tr><td>Age</td><td># bio ♂</td><td># bio ♀</td><td>Ratio</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Up to 18</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>18-40</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>40-60</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>+60</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Dead</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

The number of biographies will then be analysed by age, and the gap will be assessed as a function of age.

The hypothesis can be stated as follows:

> The gender gap in the number of biographies on English Wikipedia is influenced by individuals' age
In this example, the relationship is causal. A change in the value of one variable will lead to a change in the value of the other variable. In this context, this means that either the age of individuals contributes to the gap, or it does not.

Once again, this is a claim to be tested. It may be valid or invalid. If it is found to be invalid, this does not conclude the research. The researcher must seek to understand why the hypothesis was invalid and propose alternative explanations or solutions.

## Research problem properties

In this section, the research problem will be examined as a subject. Four key aspects of research problems will be addressed:

1. The status of the problem, this refers to the current state of knowledge and achievements related to the problem on a global scale.
2. The size of the problem, it refers to what needs to be considered within the problem boundary, ensuring it is well-defined.

3. The availability of tools and resources, this addresses the tools and sources necessary for studying the problem.

4. The studyability of the problem, this involves determining whether the problem can be effectively studied.

The subsequent sections of this chapter will provide a detailed discussion of each of these aspects.

## The status of the problem

This property examines the current state of the problem at the time of conducting the study. As discussed in Part I, the creation of scientific knowledge is an ongoing process, so it is likely that other researchers have already considered and attempted to address the problem. Thus, the researcher must investigate first recent developments related to the research problem.
There are four possible outcomes:

1. **The problem is resolved:** A solution already exists, and the researcher can verify it independently. It is not advisable to attempt solving the problem again. However, the researcher has three potential paths:

a. Define a new problem based on the recent findings.

b. Optimise the solution by improving the efficiency or methods used to achieve the same results.

c. Move on and explore a different research problem.

2. **Ongoing research:** If other researchers are actively working on the problem but has not yet solved it, the researcher should ideally contact them to request a summary of their findings. However, the response might be negative or non-existent. Still, if the researcher receives a positive reply, it can significantly refine the problem. It is
also beneficial to monitor the publications of
those researchers working on the problem, as
these might provide valuable insights.

3. **Unsolvable with current knowledge:** In cases where the problem has been proven unsolvable with current tools or knowledge,<fnref n="116" /> the researcher should verify this claim independently. If confirmed, it is advisable to shift focus to a different problem.

4. **Unaddressed problem:** If the problem remains open, with no existing research, the researcher has the opportunity to tackle it using the scientific method.

**Size of the problem**

The researcher must select a problem that is feasible
within his current capacity. Therefore, it is essential
to define the problem in detail, taking into account

<footnote n="116">¹¹⁶ It is essential to check the publication date in such cases, as there may have been significant breakthroughs or advancements in the research field since the article was published.</footnote>
the time available and the duration required to apply
the scientific method. Estimating this can be complex
for early-career researchers, so it is advisable to seek
guidance from experienced researchers in the field.
Based on their experience, they can provide a more
accurate estimate. This also highlights the
importance of communication among researchers
when applying the scientific method.

The researcher must also consider the cost involved.
For example, funds may be needed to purchase
materials for experiments, and if the budget is
exceeded, it could directly affect the research. There
may also be a need to travel for testing, accessing
specific resources, or attending scientific
conferences. These factors should all be taken into
account when defining the research problem.

Availability of tools and sources

It is crucial for the researcher to be aware of the
technological limitations within the field of the
research problem. A hypothesis might require
specific tools or resources, such as computational power for testing, and these tools may not yet be available.

Another scenario is that while the required technology exists, it may not be accessible due to restrictions. For instance, certain advanced technologies may be classified for national security reasons in various countries, limiting public access. This is a common issue concerning sources and documents. Some materials, like ancient manuscripts, are held in private collections. Therefore, while they exist, they are not accessible for research. Additionally, certain government-generated documents, such as sensitive demographic statistics, may be classified and unavailable for public access. In many instances, there may be laws that
restrict the collection of such data for
research purposes.<fnref n="117" />

In this context, it is also important to distinguish
between what is free and what is open, as this can
significantly affect the cost of the study. “Free”
indicates that the researcher can access tools or
sources without any costs. Conversely, some sources
and tools may be classified as open, meaning they are
publicly accessible but require a fee for access or use.

<footnote n="117">117 Laws regarding data collection and processing vary depending on the country in which the study is conducted. For instance, in France, it is illegal to process personal data that reveals an individual's alleged racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, or trade union membership, as well as to handle genetic or biometric data intended for the unique identification of a person (Article 6 of the Law of 6 January 1978). In Egypt, collecting or processing sensitive data requires prior approval from the Data Protection Centre. Sensitive data in this context includes psychological, mental, physical, or genetic information, biometric or financial data, religious beliefs, political views, or criminal records (Article 1 of Law No. 151 of 2020).</footnote>
**Studyability of the problem**

This refers to the feasibility of the research being conducted. Several aspects must be considered in this context:

1. **Is it safe to conduct the study?** This can be understood in two different ways:

a. **Natural risks:** For instance, if the research is taking place on an isolated island, atop a volcano, or deep in the ocean, ensuring safety is unquestionable.

b. **Human factors:** There may be individuals or groups who could be adversely affected by the study and may attempt to obstruct it. In social sciences, for example, a government may seek to conceal certain information, a criminal organisation may be active in the area, or a political or religious group might be concerned about
the potential implications of the
study's findings.<fnref n="118" />

2. In certain cases, knowledge of specific languages is essential, without this knowledge, the problem cannot be addressed effectively. For instance, if most of the sources relevant to the research are written in a particular language, the researcher must be proficient in that language. For example, nearly all texts related to Islamic studies are composed in Arabic, making it a pre-request for researchers in this field.

In other cases, the language may be spoken
but lacks a written system. Many
anthropologists who have lived among and
studied indigenous populations have had to
learn their native languages. Translation is

<footnote n="118">¹¹⁸ A recent example involves the threats faced by scientists researching climate change. A study conducted in 2022 revealed that these scientists experience persistent online harassment related to their work, which includes death threats, trolling, and sexual abuse, see [ARE17] for more details.</footnote>
often inadequate, as some nuances of
meaning are invariably lost in the process. In
anthropology, this aspect is vital and must not
be overlooked.

3. Researchers must always maintain an objective perspective concerning the problem under investigation. If a researcher holds strong personal opinions that could interfere with their reasoning and judgment, the problem may not be appropriate for them to study. This is a significant concern in the social sciences, including fields such as politics, economics, and religion
<figure><img src="image_54.png" /></figure>
# On the sources

## Introduction

Science is an ongoing process, and sources serve as valuable tools to demonstrate this continuity. In research, scientists build upon existing knowledge. Typically, they begin with sources produced by other scientists, and the findings of their research then become sources in the future.

In Chapter 4, when discussing the scientific method, the state-of-the-art was defined as the forefront of human understanding. It is the foundation that supports research, as scientists seek references to ensure they start new research on solid ground.

In the first part of this chapter, the state-of-the-art will be introduced, outlining its objectives and various types. Detailed steps will be provided on how to create it, with particular emphasis on what to include and what to avoid. The second part will concentrate on the references used in research, discussing how to
classify them, their properties, and the different
types available.

The state-of-the-art

In Chapter 4, the state-of-the-art was introduced as a step in the scientific method. In nearly all cases, once the problem is defined, conducting the state-of-the-art follows as the next step.

During this step, the researcher must explore further
to enhance his understanding of the problem. The
research problem will be affected as a result of having
solid knowledge.

The term “state-of-the-art” refers to:

The cutting or leading edge of the human
knowledge

This definition implies that the researcher must
understand the current knowledge surrounding the
identified research problem. It is also important to
determine who is actively working on the problem, if anyone, and what their efforts involve. This helps to prevent the duplication of work that has already been completed.

Chapter 4 also emphasised that the research problem is likely rooted in the work of other researchers. Therefore, conducting a thorough state-of-the-art involves searching for these works, assessing their reliability, and correctly incorporating them into the existing state-of-the-art.

At this stage, it is crucial to understand that the state-of-the-art is not merely a random collection of articles and studies related to the research problem. Instead, the gathered works must be organised, analysed, and presented as a coherent summary.

By the conclusion of the state-of-the-art, the researcher is expected to have gained a comprehensive understanding of the defined problem. This acquired knowledge should be utilised to improve the description of the research problem.
The state-of-the-art is the stage where researchers review the works of others, rather than in the later steps of the research process. If, during the later stages, a researcher discovers an article that significantly contributes to the solution but was overlooked, it could invalidate the entire research. The same applies if the researcher learns, after a year of working that someone resolved the problem he is handling, for example, two years earlier.

In simple terms, the researcher must take time to thoroughly conduct the state-of-the-art, ensuring that all aspects of the problem are addressed.

Next, there are five main sections to cover the state-of-the-art in detail: the objectives of the state-of-the-art, its types, what to include and what to avoid, and finally, how to conduct a state-of-the-art.
**Objectives**

This section aims to address two key questions: Why is the state-of-the-art conducted? And what do researchers hope to achieve when it is done correctly?

There are six aspects that need to be covered to help answer these two questions, The state-of-the-art is performed to:

1. Confirming the problem is still unresolved:

The first objective is to verify that the research problem remains open, with no existing solution proposed. If the problem persists, the next step is to identify who is currently working on it. If the topic is popular within the research field, it is likely that others are investigating it. Understanding their work helps to avoid unnecessary repetition.

2. Placing the research problem within the broader context of knowledge: It is essential to determine how the research problem fits
into the wider scope of human knowledge,
especially within the specific research
domain. Reviewing the most recent studies in
the field is an effective way to achieve this.
Open questions often represent the
boundaries of current knowledge, and by
identifying these gaps and comparing them
with the research problem at hand, the
researcher can position their work accurately.

3. **Gaining a deeper understanding of the problem's context:** Thoroughly reviewing scientific works related to the research problem often reveals paths that have already been explored and proven ineffective. For instance, a hypothesis that has been tested and invalidated can help avoid unnecessary efforts, allowing the researcher to narrow the research design.

4. **Identifying alternative research methods:** By examining how other researchers have
tackled similar problems, the researcher can gain insights into the methods they employed, the reasons behind their choices, and whether these methods could be reused or improved. This can significantly reduce time and effort. The state-of-the-art is not about gathering information from scientific works, but also about exploring research methods and strategies that can be reused to strengthen the upcoming research.

5. **Helping the researcher discover a wealth of sources related to the research problem:** Each scientific work includes a reference section where the author cites other works used in their research. It is highly recommended to explore the reference sections of relevant works to find additional sources related to the research problem.

6. **Creating the timeline of the research problem:** Exploring the reference sections of
others' works is like taking a journey through time, as the collection of cited articles can be organised to form a timeline. This timeline starts with the earliest instance when the research problem was first raised and continues to the most recent contributions showing the current progress towards its resolution. By creating such a timeline, researchers gain a clear chronological understanding of the problem, allowing them to predict potential future developments or the next major step in addressing the issue.

## Types

Depending on its purpose, the state-of-the-art can be categorised into two types:

* Stand-alone state-of-the-art, also known as a survey. It is an academic journal article dedicated to presenting the current advancements related to a specific research problem.
* Integrated state-of-the-art, which is included as part of a larger research work, such as a research report or a Ph.D. thesis, and is typically found in the first or second chapter.

Table 6-1 provides a comparison of these two types based on the following four criteria. They are:

<table><caption>Table 6-1. Stand-alone and integrated state-of-the-arts comparison</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Stand-alone state-of-the-art</th><th>Integrated state-of-the-art</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>Expected output</th><td>Stand-alone complete work</td><td>Part of other research work</td></tr><tr><th>Contribution of the research</th><td><ul><li>Limited, no new results</li><li>Might include analysis of what are the open questions regarding the research problem</li></ul></td><td>The base over which the original research will be built in later step.</td></tr><tr><th>Publication type</th><td>Academic article (Survey)</td><td>Part of research report or Ph.D. thesis</td></tr><tr><th>Utility</th><td>Others save time and effort when studying the problem</td><td>Reform the research problem on which the research will try to answer</td></tr></tbody></table>
1. **Expected output:** This refers to the result produced once the state-of-the-art is completed.

2. **Contribution of the research:** This indicates the added value of the work. As discussed in Chapters 1 and 2, each scientific work should contribute new knowledge.

3. **Publication type:** This refers to the final form of the publication that will include the state-of-the-art.

4. **Utility:** This explains how other researchers can benefit from the state-of-the-art.

There is also a rare third scenario where no previous studies are available on the research problem, though this is an uncommon occurrence.

The first step the researcher must take in such a situation is to thoroughly verify the absence of previous studies, double-checking multiple times before accepting this conclusion. While it is not impossible, it is exceptionally rare for a researcher to
address a problem for the first time in human history. As discussed in Chapter 1, human knowledge expands gradually, and it is unusual to encounter something entirely new that cannot be linked to the existing understanding of the world.

However, “very rare” does not mean impossible. For instance, in 1736, Leonhard Euler<fnref n="119" /> published a paper in the Commentaries of the Petropolitan Imperial Academy of Sciences<fnref n="120" /> addressing a unique

<footnote n="119">¹¹⁹ Leonhard Euler (1707–1783), a mathematician, physicist, and engineer, born in Basel and passed away in Saint Petersburg. Throughout his distinguished career, Euler made several notable contributions to mathematics and science. He is recognised for defining the constant *e*, known as Euler's number, which is the base of the natural logarithm. He also introduced the use of the Greek letter π to represent the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter and the letter *i* to symbolise the imaginary unit in complex numbers.</footnote>

<footnote n="120">¹²⁰ The journal was written in Latin, with the original title: “Commentarii Academiae Scientiarum Imperialis Petropolitanae”. The title of Euler's original article was: “Solutio problematis ad geometriam situs pertinentis”, which translates literally as “Solution of problems related to the geometry of position”. Refer to [ARL01] for the original article.</footnote>
problem found in Königsberg<sup>121</sup>, Prussia. The city was divided by the Pregel River, with two islands connected to the mainland by seven bridges. The challenge was to determine whether it was possible to walk through the city, crossing each bridge only once (Figure 6-1).

<figure><img src="image_55.png" /><figcaption>Figure 6-1. The problem of the seven bridges of Königsberg<sup>122</sup></figcaption></figure>

When the problem was first introduced, there were no previous studies addressing anything similar. Although Euler concluded in his article that the

<footnote n="121">121 Now known as Kaliningrad (Russian: Калининград), it is the capital of Kaliningrad Oblast in present-day Russia.</footnote>

<footnote n="122">122 This is a modified version of the original illustration created by Matthäus Merian the Elder (1593 - 1650).</footnote>
problem was unsolvable and that it was impossible to
cross all seven bridges in a single walk, this work is
now recognised by historians of mathematics as the
beginning of a new branch of mathematics known as
graph theory.

A more recent example is John Nash<fnref n="123" /> and the
development of game theory<fnref n="124" />. Nash, a Ph.D.
student at the time, created a new field that bridges
Economics and Mathematics, now called game
theory. It provides a framework for understanding
human behaviour, not only in economics but also in
real-life situations. Nash was the first non-economist

<footnote n="123">¹²³ John Forbes Nash, Jr. (1928–2015), an American mathematician best known for his significant contributions to game theory, including concepts named after him such as Nash equilibrium, Nash functions, and the Nash bargaining game.</footnote>

<footnote n="124">¹²⁴ Outside academic circles, Nash is widely recognised for the film "A Beautiful Mind", which is based on his life story. The film won the Academy Award for Best Picture in 2001.</footnote>
to win the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1994 for his
groundbreaking contributions to this field.<fnref n="125" />

When Nash wrote his thesis<fnref n="126" />, he was the first person to explore this subject, so there were no prior studies or references available for him to use. A typical Ph.D. thesis often includes 100 to 200 references, and in some cases even more. It is uncommon for a thesis to be approved with fewer references than this. However, Nash's thesis contained only two references (Figure 6-2).

Bibliography

(1) von Neumann, Morgenstern, "Theory of Games and Economic Behavior", Princeton University Press, 1944.

(2) J. F. Nash, Jr., "Equilibrium Points in N-Person Games", Proc. No. A. 5. 36 (1950) 46-49.

Figure 6-2. A screenshot of Nash bibliography section in his these

<footnote n="125">¹²⁵ Nash shared the Nobel Prize with John Harsanyi (1920–2000) and Reinhard Selten (1930–2016). The Nobel Prize committee noted their achievement as being “for their pioneering analysis of equilibria in the theory of non-cooperative games”.[WEB08]</footnote>

<footnote n="126">¹²⁶ Nash completed his thesis in May 1950 at Princeton University, titled “Non-Cooperative Games”. The thesis consists of 26 pages and includes only two references. [THS01]</footnote>
## Conducting a state-of-the-Art

Doing a state-of-the-art on the studied problem is a major step toward advancing in the research. This section outlines how to conduct it effectively, including what to include, what to avoid, and key considerations.

There are four main steps to follow in order to carry out a state-of-the-art:

1. Collecting relevant studies and scientific works related to the research problem. A general research search engine, such as Google Scholar, serves as a useful starting point.

Employing selective reading is advisable. As soon as the collecting process begins, there will likely be hundreds of pages to review, with many being irrelevant to the research focus. Therefore, it is highly recommended to implement selective reading to quickly eliminate unrelated content.
It is essential to compile a list of keywords that encompass the main aspects of each selected work. The use of reference management software, as discussed in Chapter 5, is strongly recommended.

2. Defining the outlines of the state-of-the-art.

Outlines represent the key themes addressed in the articles, theses, or other scientific works gathered in the previous step. Once a selection of articles closely related to the research problem is collected, the researcher can identify recurring themes through careful reading and analysis. A primary objective is to recognise these patterns and themes.

An effective state-of-the-art is organised by themes rather than by authors or individual works, and structuring it based on the latter two is a common mistake. However, once the themes have been identified, each can be
examined in relation to the
corresponding works.

Another approach, in certain instances, is to
analyse each theme according to the authors.
In this scenario, there may be a key
contributor to the solution or a prominent
research institution that has been engaged
with the problem for an extended period. The
prolonged involvement may lead to the
development of a unique research method.
Therefore, presenting the works gathered in
the state-of-the-art, by authors or research
institutions, can be the most effective
strategy in these scenarios.

Outlines are not a fixed structure; rather, they
are dynamic. As the research progresses, the
outlines will become increasingly precise. In
many cases, the researcher may need to
eliminate some outlines from the list because
they have become too broad as the research problem is refined and specified.

3. Presenting all valuable and reliable perspectives collected regarding the research problem. These various viewpoints contribute to identifying the main currents that address the research issue.

4. Analysing the collected data presented in the previous step. This analysis is the final and most crucial step of the state-of-the-art, where the researcher seeks to explain the differing opinions on the subject under study and how these insights will help build the method to address the research problem.

By the end of the state-of-the-art, the original research problem formulated at the beginning should become too general to continue with. Instead, a new, well-defined research problem will emerge based on the findings from the state-of-the-art.
## What to include?

The state-of-the-art is an organised presentation of current human knowledge related to a specific research problem. It does not aim to cover all the knowledge ever produced on the subject, but rather highlights the current boundaries of understanding within the context of the problem.

Given the vastness of human knowledge, the amount of information retrieved when using search engines with keywords can be overwhelming. However, it is unlikely that all the results will directly address the exact research problem. Most of the findings will cover only certain aspects of the problem, which is why it is crucial to narrow down the keyword list to focus on a specific research domain.

For example, when studying the relationship between violence and young people in a given society, using general keywords like “violence” and “youth” in Google Scholar might bring up results related to violence in sports. While these are not
relevant to the research focus, they match the search engine's criteria. There is a need to narrow the research. Therefore, the researcher should specify the research domain by adding more targeted keywords, such as “social” or “society”, to better align with the research focus.

Next, the research focus needs to be further narrowed. Each domain contains various fields of interest, and the research problem is likely connected to one or two specific fields. Therefore, scientific works from these relevant fields should be prioritised over other findings.

This means that the researcher must begin by categorising the works according to themes. Priority should be assigned to the theme, not the individual articles. For instance, if the research is on binary logic in computers, the main domain would be mathematics, not physics or geography. However, mathematics itself is a broad field with subfields like algebra and calculus, which may be unrelated to the
research problem. In this case, binary logic falls under
set theory (Figure 6-3). Therefore, works related to
set theory should be prioritised over those related to
calculus, even though both belong to the domain
of mathematics.

<figure><img src="image_56.png" /><figcaption>Figure 6-3. Research domains and fields on interests</figcaption></figure>

To achieve that, establishing a system of priorities is
essential. This approach assigns a priority level to
each category, helping to manage the vast amount of
information. Using the previous example, a simple
three-point scale can be applied:
* One point: If the subject falls outside the research domain, for instance, in physics or geography.

* Two points: If it is within the general domain but outside the specific fields of interest, such as algebra or calculus within mathematics.

* Three points: If it belongs to the relevant field or fields of interest closely related to the research problem, such as set theory for binary logic.

This example illustrates the concept, but in practice, the system of priorities might be more complex depending on the nature of the research.

## What to avoid?

There are several critical errors must be avoided when conducting a state-of-the-art. This section will outline these mistakes as a list, its elements:

* The state-of-the-art is not merely a collection of everything the researcher finds on the
research problem. The purpose of the-state-of-the-art is not to list all sources but to identify the key themes related to the research and understand how they are interconnected. Therefore, it is important to summarise each scientific work using a few key terms that reflect its main themes.

This also means that the researcher must classify, sort, and analyse the collected data:

a. **Classify**: It means to group together articles that share common features, such as the year of publication or other relevant categories that serve the research.

b. **Sort**: It refers to the act of arranging the articles within each group, often in chronological order, though other criteria may be used if they benefit the research.
c. **Analyse:** Meaning to draw new insights from the results of classification and sorting, further advancing understanding of the research problem.

* The state-of-the-art is not simply about creating abstracts or summaries of other works related to the research problem. In many cases, while reviewing other studies, the researcher may identify issues in the research methods or inconsistencies in the results. It is important to highlight these concerns, explain how they were detected, and justify why the researcher believes there is a need for improvement or correction.

* The state-of-the-art is not intended to be a bibliography section. Researchers should avoid including detailed bibliographical information, such as publisher names or page numbers, in the state-of-the-art. Such details
belong in the bibliography section at the end
of the document. However, there are
instances where mentioning the year of
publication is necessary, especially when
creating a chronological order or timeline.
Similarly, the author's surname might be used
instead of the full title to reference the work.
If an author has produced multiple works that
need to be cited, it is helpful to refer to them
using the author's surname and the year of
publication. If this does not sufficiently
distinguish between the works, such as when
two articles by the same author were
published in the same year, adding details like
the publisher, conference, or journal name is
a useful approach. This helps avoid confusion
while keeping the state-of-the-art focused
and organised.

* The state-of-the-art should not be treated as a debate or confrontation with other
researchers. It is essential for the researcher to avoid criticising authors personally and instead focus on evaluating their work. Criticisms should be aimed at the research itself, not the individuals who created it.

It is advisable to review the work multiple times and approach it objectively before making any final conclusions. A good practice is to search for later versions of the work or subsequent publications by the same author(s). It is quite possible that any identified errors have already been corrected by the author. Additionally, it is useful to check if other studies support the same viewpoint or reach similar conclusions. If such studies exist, this does not necessarily invalidate criticism but suggests a need for further verification before finalising any negative assessment.
# The references

## Basic terminology

In research, the terms “sources” and “references” are often used interchangeably to refer to any form of literary work, typically intended for public access. This broad term encompasses a wide range of materials, from ancient surviving manuscripts to modern-day webpages created in the 21st century.

Publications are the most common type of source, including journal articles, books, research reports, and encyclopaedias. However, sources extend beyond written material to include items like maps, musical recordings, visual media in national archives as well as digital datasets and mailing lists.

Referring to specific information within a source is known as a “citation”.<fnref n="127" /> To cite means to provide the

<footnote n="127">¹²⁷ Citation involves paraphrasing, summarising, or rewording a piece of information from a source. This should not be confused with “quotation”, which means presenting the information exactly as it appears in the source, word for word.</footnote>
exact location of that information within the source,
ensuring it can be retrieved without ambiguity. Since
sources vary in type, the details required for citation
differ. For example, when citing a book, the page
number and edition are crucial, whereas citing a
musical recording in a national archive requires
noting the exact time the information appears, down
to minutes and seconds.

Academic articles are the dominant sources in
modern research, making it inevitable to understand
key citation terms like volume, issue (also called
number), and pages. Journals are published
periodically, often monthly or biannually, and each
publication is called an issue, refer to as "No." as well.
Each issue contains several articles and has its own
page numbering system. Multiple issues are grouped
together to form a volume (Figure 6-4), which could
represent a year's worth of issues. However, it might
also follow a different numbering system. Therefore,
to accurately cite a journal article, volume, issue, and
page numbers are necessary.

<figure><img src="image_57.png" /><figcaption>Figure 6-4. Hierarchical structure of an academic journal publication</figcaption></figure>

Books also use the term “volume” to refer to a part of a larger work. If a book exceeds 500 pages, it is likely to be divided into two or more volumes. In such cases, specifying the volume where the information is found is as important as noting the page number.

When a book is republished with updates or
corrections, these changes can alter the page
numbering from the original edition. Therefore, if
multiple editions exist, it is essential to mention
which edition was used.
The term “citation style” refers to the specific format and order in which citation details are presented. For example, a citation might start with the author's name, followed by the publication year in parentheses, then the title in quotation marks, and so on.

Examples of citation styles include the Modern Language Association (MLA), the American Psychological Association (APA), and the Chicago Manual of Style (CMOS).<fnref n="128" /> Each style has its own detailed manual, often hundreds of pages long, addressing all the nuances and special cases for citations.

No citation style is inherently better than another. However, certain research fields may prefer one style because it highlights information relevant to that domain. Additionally, some academic journals and

<footnote n="128">¹²⁸ Check [BKE15] for MLA, [BKE16] for APA and [BKE17] for CMOS.</footnote>
publishers may require a specific citation style for
editorial consistency. If no particular style is
mandated, it is advisable to use one style consistently
throughout the entire work to maintain coherence.

## Authority control

Correct citation requires accurately providing key
details, such as the author(s) name(s), the title of the
work, and various numerical or alphabetical
constants. If these details are not presented
correctly, the citation system fails to function as
intended. A simple example is the publication year: if
misread or misspelled, like 2001 instead of 2010, it
could lead to missing the reference entirely.

The issue becomes even more problematic with
alphabetical constants, such as names and titles,
which may be recorded or presented in different
forms, making it difficult to identify the publication.
For instance, the author of this book could have his
name written in several variations:
Michel BAKNI

Michel B.

M. Bakni

Michel N. Bakni

Bakni, Michel

B. Michel

Michel Nicolas Bakni

Theoretically, there is no limit to the types of errors that can arise in this context, even when using Latin scripts only. The issue becomes even more complex when dealing with different writing systems, such as Arabic or Chinese, where variations in names or titles can create further confusion.

This problem also affects book titles, article titles, and institution names. For example, the title "Introduction to the Scientific Method" may refer to several published books, written by different authors in different years and locations.

In simple terms, names, especially alphabetical ones, are not reliable for uniquely identifying objects. Therefore, a system is needed to create, store, and
manage numerical or alphanumerical<fnref n="129" /> identifiers to
recognise objects uniquely. This is the purpose of
authority control.

Identifiers are applied to books, academic articles,
people, and entities. In fact, such systems are not
limited to the scientific field. They are also used in
everyday life, like in car registration plates.

In the next section, four commonly used identifiers
will be discussed: the International Standard Book
Number (ISBN), the Online Computer Library Centre
(OCLC) identifier, the Digital Object Identifier (DOI),
and the International Standard Serial Number (ISSN).

ISBN

ISBN stands for International Standard Book Number.

It is a unique identifier for a specific edition of a book,
meaning all copies of the same edition share the
same ISBN. If a book has multiple editions, each

<footnote n="129">¹²⁹ Alphanumerical means that the identifier contains both letters and numbers.</footnote>
edition will have a different ISBN. This also applies to print and digital versions, as they are considered different editions and will therefore have separate ISBNs. Typically, an ISBN appears as a barcode on the back cover of a book.

The ISBN system was established in 1970 and is now used worldwide. It is uncommon to find a published book today without an ISBN. The system is managed by the International ISBN Agency, which operates through national branches in various countries. Publishers and independent authors apply to these agencies to obtain ISBNs for their works.

An ISBN consists of 13 digits, although older books, published before 2006, have a 10-digit ISBN, as the system was expanded that year. The final digit of an ISBN can sometimes be an “X”, which represents the number 10, a practice based on Roman numerals. The digits in an ISBN are not randomly assigned, they are divided into five sections that indicate the
country, the publisher, and the specific
title (Figure 6-5).

<figure><img src="image_58.png" /><figcaption>Figure 6-5. An ISBN barcoded</figcaption></figure>

OCLC

OCLC stands for Online Computer Library Centre. It is
an identifier for a specific copy of a book in a public
library, meaning that even two copies of the same
edition will have different OCLC identifiers. This
system, managed by Online Computer Library Centre,
is not limited to books, it also includes academic
articles, maps, and online resources.
The OCLC system, also known as WorldCat,<fnref n="130" /> was established in 1998. It allows member libraries to synchronise their local databases with a unified global database maintained by OCLC, which is freely accessible to the public.

The structure of OCLC numbers is more complex compared to ISBN. However, it is generally not a primary concern for researchers.<fnref n="131" /> An OCLC number consists of 5 to 10 digits. For instance, 729551189 is the OCLC identifier for a copy of the 3rd edition of the Oxford Dictionary of English, published by Oxford University Press in 2011.

## DOI

DOI stands for Digital Object Identifier, which is used to identify objects in the digital world. Academic articles, e-books, and other digital content can have

<footnote n="130">¹³⁰ Check https://www.worldcat.org.</footnote>

<footnote n="131">¹³¹ Refer to [WEB09] for more details.</footnote>
DOIs, which can typically be used to create hyperlinks that direct users to the resource online.

The DOI system was established in 2000, following the ISO 26324 standard set by the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO). It is managed by the International DOI Foundation. Publishers, institutions, and independent authors pay to be assigned DOIs.

A DOI consists of two parts: a prefix and a suffix, separated by a slash. Both parts are case-insensitive and can contain characters, including dots. The prefix is assigned by the foundation to the registering entity, while the entity assigns the suffix to uniquely identify its objects. For example, the DOI Handbook has the DOI "10.1000/182",<fnref n="132" /> where "10.1000" is the prefix, and "182" is the suffix.

<footnote n="132">¹³² A DOI can be turned into a link to webpage by adding it to "https://doi.org/". This will create a URL that redirects the user to the digital object it identifies, making it easy to access the resource online.</footnote>
## ISSN

ISSN stands for International Standard Serial Number. It is an identifier for serial publications like academic journals, introduced in 1976.

The ISSN consists of eight digits, split into two groups of four, separated by a dash (e.g., 1660-4601). The first seven digits uniquely identify the series, and the eighth is a check digit, which can be 0-9 or an “X” to represent 10, calculated using a specific algorithm.

ISSN is managed by the ISSN International Centre. Although journals must pay for an ISSN, the system offers a publicly accessible database.<fnref n="133" />

## Handling sources

### Classification

Sources are categorised based on the number of steps a person takes to reach the original piece of information.

<footnote n="133">133 Check https://www.issn.org.</footnote>
In Figure 6-6, the subject being studied is represented by a black circle in the centre. The further away a source is from this point, the higher its classification. The three types are: primary, secondary, and tertiary sources.

<figure><img src="image_59.png" /><figcaption>Figure 6-6. Classification of research sources</figcaption></figure>

Primary sources are directly linked to the subject being studied. They include individuals who have direct experience with the subject, so their accounts or information may be biased and need to be handled with caution. This is especially true for eyewitnesses of shocking or violent events, such as natural disasters or crimes. Primary sources also include scientific research from experts closely involved with the subject. These studies should be approached
carefully as well, as they may not have undergone
peer review or could contain errors.<fnref n="134" />

Secondary sources are created by individuals who did
not have direct contact with the subject. Instead,
they relied on information from people or works that
did. This makes them one step removed from the
original subject, which can be a two-edged sword.

On the downside, secondary sources may contain
inaccuracies due to misinterpretation or incorrect
understanding of the original information. Therefore,
it is important for researchers to verify the reliability
of secondary sources. On the upside, secondary
sources can provide a broader perspective on the
subject, allowing for a more balanced understanding

<footnote n="134">134 During the COVID-19 pandemic, The Lancet published a journal article on the use of hydroxychloroquine on 22 May 2020 [ARE18]. Following significant criticism of the study's methods and findings, three of the four authors reviewed the work and requested its retraction. The article was retracted on 4 June 2020. Although still accessible to the public, it is now marked with the keyword "RETRACTED", refer to [WEB10] for checking.</footnote>
by filtering out bias or extreme reactions. Surveys, as discussed in Chapter 5, are examples of secondary sources, as they collect and summarise the findings of primary research.

The third type of source is known as tertiary sources, which are two steps removed from the original subject. While these sources are appropriate for general public use, they often provide a broad overview rather than detailed or precise information, making them less suitable for in-depth research. Tertiary sources are helpful for gaining a general understanding of a subject but lack the specificity required for solid academic study. Examples include encyclopaedias and dictionaries.

Any source that does not fall into the primary, secondary, or tertiary classification should not be considered for research purposes.
# Properties

## Reliability

Reliability refers to how trustworthy a source is, though it cannot be measured precisely. Instead, it must be assessed based on various factors. A source can be considered reliable, questionable, or unreliable. Only reliable sources should be cited in research.

One key factor in evaluating reliability is the method used to create the source. Scientific sources strictly follow the scientific method, which involves defining a problem, building the state-of-the-art, forming a hypothesis, conducting tests, presenting results, analysing them, and drawing conclusions. A source that focuses mainly on results without explaining the method is not scientific.

Another important factor is the publication process. Scientific works typically undergo peer review and thorough editing before being published. The more
transparent the review process, the more reliable
the source.

Other elements that help determine reliability
include the reputation of the publisher, the
institution where the author works, and the
qualifications of the researcher. All these factors
should be checked when assessing the reliability of
a source.

Independency

For a source to be credible, it must be independent
of the subject it discusses. This means the author
should present information objectively, focusing
solely on facts and not personal opinions. This
principle can be applied to exclude promotional
materials from research, such as content that
encourages people to buy a product, support a
political movement, or join a religious group.

In this context, the term "conflict of interest" refers
to the idea that authors should have no personal
influence on the materials they produce. For
instance, large companies or industries may attempt to influence research that could negatively affect their products, often using financial or indirect means.<fnref n="135" /> Therefore, when scientific research is published, authors typically declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

In some situations, there may be only one source of information that is directly connected to the studied subject, such as government reports, especially on sensitive or controversial topics. In these cases, the information should be handled cautiously and attributed to its source as a perspective on the issue, rather than as an absolute fact.

Assessing the independence of a source is not always straightforward. A reliable approach is to avoid self-published materials on controversial topics. It is also

<footnote n="135">¹³⁵ For example, climate change denial represents a persistent crisis driven by pseudoscientific research or invalid interpretations of data. The primary beneficiaries of this denial are the oil industries.</footnote>
helpful to ensure that the article was published in a
journal with a genuine peer-review process. The
credibility of the authors, their institutions, and the
journal's reputation are key factors to consider.

Verifiability

Verifiability refers to the ability for the sources used
in scientific work to be accessible to the public,
allowing others to confirm the author's claims. In this
context, “accessible” means open to public, though
not necessarily free. Some sources may require
payment for access, while others may need special
permissions, such as documents stored in archives
under controlled conditions. However, these access
requirements do not make a source unverifiable.

For books and academic articles, a confirmation that
they have been officially published is needed, as the
mere existence of PDF files in the internet is not proof
of publication. Checking international identifiers, like
OCLC, helps confirm that third parties have verified
the published version. For web pages, either the live
page or an archived version must be accessible for
the source to be considered verifiable.

Types

Not all sources of knowledge are appropriate for use
in research. Sources must be scientific, verifiable, and
published in a trustworthy medium by individuals
who have no conflict of interest concerning the
subject under study.

Below is a brief list of sources that meet these
criteria, which will be discussed in the following
sections. Table 6-2 compares the citation
requirements for different types of sources,
highlighting the key information needed for
accurate citation.

*   **Peer-reviewed articles**, including both
    conference and journal articles, are essential
    sources for research as they undergo a peer-
    review process. This process excludes essays
and opinion articles from being included in
this category.

While conference articles are generally
considered primary sources, journal articles
are typically secondary sources. Scientific
articles usually focus on specific research
topics, detailing the problem, method, and
results. These articles are often concise,
typically 6-8 pages long, but can sometimes
extend to 20 pages or more, especially in the
case of surveys.

When citing journal articles, it is crucial to
include the name of the journal, volume,
issue, and the page numbers where the article
appears. For conference papers, the citation
should include the conference name, year,
and page number. In both instances, the
citation must also include the authors' names,
publication date, and unique identifiers, such
as ISSN for journals, ISBN for conferences
proceedings, and DOI for both.

* **Books**, particularly high-level scientific works by reputable authors and published by well-known academic publishers,<fnref n="136" /> are valid sources for research. However, books of a literary nature, educational textbooks for schools, and works aimed at popularising science are excluded.

High-level scientific books are generally considered secondary sources, providing in-depth explanations of specific phenomena or concepts. These books must be thoroughly referenced and strictly follow the scientific method, often written by multiple authors and reviewed independently.

<footnote n="136">¹³⁶ An exception is self-published books, especially with the rise of open access through Creative Commons licences, where more scientists are sharing their work for free.</footnote>
Dictionaries, encyclopaedias and reference handbooks also fall under this category but are considered tertiary sources. They usually provide summary information and lack detailed references.

When citing books, it is crucial to specify the page where the information is found, and if the book consists of multiple volumes or editions, the exact volume and edition should also be included. Other essential citation details include the author(s) name(s), complete title, publication year, publisher, publication place and ISBN.

* **Research reports**, this category includes documents published by research institutions or governmental agencies to address specific research questions. These reports are often technical and detailed but may not undergo an independent peer-review process,
meaning they could contain biases or conflicts
of interest.

Research reports are considered primary
sources, as they are produced directly by
researchers involved in the study. In many
cases, a large team of researchers contributes
to the report, and their names are typically
listed at the beginning. However, when citing
such a report, it is not necessary to list all
contributors if there are more than five.

Although the authors' names can be omitted
in citations, the name of the institution and
the publication date must always be included.

Research reports may also have unique
identifiers assigned by the institution, which
are essential to include for accurate citation.

* Ph.D. theses, these are comprehensive
dissertations written by early-carrier
researchers to earn a Doctor of Philosophy
(Ph.D.) degree in a specific scientific field. A
thesis presents in-depth research conducted
according to the scientific method, including a
review of current knowledge, hypotheses,
testing, analysis, and conclusions. Typically,
completing a Ph.D. takes around three years.
Each thesis is evaluated and approved by an
independent jury and then published under
the name of the university where the research
was performed.

Ph.D. theses are valuable resources for
research but should be used cautiously. As
primary sources, they often represent the
cutting edge of knowledge in their specific
area at the time of publication. However, they
may become outdated or be superseded by
newer research. Some theses might propose
bold theories that are later
significantly revised.

When citing a Ph.D. thesis, it is important to
include the publication date and the
university where the research was conducted. Additional citation details include the author's name, the title of the thesis, and any relevant identifiers.

* Web pages, this category includes materials that are available exclusively in digital form on the Internet. More specifically, a webpage is a document on the World Wide Web (WWW) accessible via a unique address called the Uniform Resource Locator (URL).<fnref n="137" /> The issue of citing web pages in research is debated, some argue they should never be cited, while others believe they can be cited under certain conditions.

Opponents of citing web pages claim they are unreliable. Since webpages are stored on private servers, they can be removed edited,

<footnote n="137">¹³⁷ A URL (also known as a web address) is a unique string of characters used to identify a web page. It was introduced in 1994 by Tim Berners-Lee (1955-). For example, a typical URL might look like this: http://www.example.com/index.html.</footnote>
or become inaccessible for various reasons, making the citation invalid. Supporters argue that special services, such as the Internet Archive, create dated backups of web pages, making them accessible even after the original page is no longer available. However, critics point out that the archive itself relies on servers that could also be shut down.

If a web page is cited, it should be accompanied by three dates and two URLs. The dates include the publication date of the original web page, the date it was accessed, and the date when it was archived. The URLs include both the original web page address and the archive link. Additionally, citation details such as the title, website name, and author(s) names, if available, should be provided.
<table><caption>Table 6-2. Required bibliographical information</caption><thead><tr><th>Type</th><th colspan="2">Required bibliographical information (if exist)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Peer-reviewed article</td><td><ul><li>Author name(s)</li><li>Title</li><li>Publication date (Month/year)</li><li>Journal name or conference title</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>Publisher</li><li>Volume</li><li>Issue</li><li>Page numbers</li><li>Publication identifies (e.g. ISSN, DOI, ISBN)</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Book</td><td><ul><li>Author name(s)</li><li>Title</li><li>Publication year</li><li>Edition</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>Publisher</li><li>Place of publication</li><li>Publication identifier (e.g. ISBN, OCLC)</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Research report</td><td><ul><li>Author name(s)</li><li>Title</li><li>Publication year</li><li>Publisher</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>Publication Place</li><li>Publication identifier (e.g. ISBN, OCLC)</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Ph.D. thesis</td><td><ul><li>Author name</li><li>Title</li><li>Publication year</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>Institution name</li><li>Publication identifier</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Web page</td><td><ul><li>Author name(s)</li><li>Page Title</li><li>Publication date</li><li>URL</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>Website name</li><li>Access date</li><li>URL archive</li><li>Archive date</li></ul></td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_60.png" /></figure>
# On the ethics of research

## Introduction

In the context of scientific research, ethics refers to the principles and standards that guide researchers in conducting studies responsibly and morally. These standards define how researchers adhere to professional norms and avoid misconduct practices such as fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism.

Ethics also ensures that researchers conduct their work in a way that respects the dignity, rights, and welfare of all humans involved, as well as other living beings such as animals and plants. In recent decades, ethics have expanded to include the protection of the environment.

Science is not an evil tool meant to destroy the world, nor is it a good tool meant to make it a better place. It is simply an objective method with steps that can be used in both ways. Science can create destructive weapons that threaten all life on Earth, but it can also
resolve problems like fighting diseases, ending hunger, and exploring space. The impact depends on who uses science, not on science itself. This is what makes the ethics of science essential to research.

This chapter covers the definition of ethics in scientific research, the key issues it addresses, which practices scientists should avoid, and how to integrate ethics into research.

## Definition

Philosophy forms the foundation of all sciences. It requires only human thought and does not rely on other sciences or branches of knowledge. Philosophers classify philosophical topics into four main areas: epistemology, ethics, Logic, and metaphysics. Ethics, also known as moral philosophy, is further divided into three branches: normative ethics, applied ethics, and metaethics. Normative ethics explores how individuals should behave and act within society. In contrast, applied ethics
examines the appropriate behaviour in specific situations, such as conducting a research. Finally, metaethics investigates moral phenomena, seeking to understand the nature, scope, and meaning of moral judgments.

Figure 7-1 shows the main branches of philosophy and the subdisciplines of applied ethics. It demonstrates that applied ethics is a broad field with various subdisciplines, including, for example, bioethics and professional ethics. Bioethics deals with moral issues related to living beings, such as humans (medical ethics), animals, and the environment. For example, medical ethics addresses issues like abortion and human cloning research, while animal ethics looks at the morality of animal testing. Environmental ethics covers moral challenges like nuclear waste production. Professional ethics involves the standards of behaviour expected from professionals, including
how researchers interact in the workplace and
conduct their studies.

<figure><img src="image_61.png" /><figcaption>Figure 7-1. Philosophy and its branches</figcaption></figure>

Thinkers and philosophers do not agree on a single
definition of morality. However, they generally
recognise three systems. The first, known as the
feminine system, is based on gentleness and
compassion and considers love as the ultimate virtue.
The second system, called the masculine system,
emphasises severity and firmness, viewing power as
the key virtue. The third system argues that virtue is
based on reason, which is the only thing capable of
judging what is good and bad.<fnref n="138" />

In research, ethics are a set of moral principles that ensure studies are conducted responsibly and with integrity, respecting the rights and welfare of participants, fellow researchers, the environment, and society. Science, as an impartial tool, relies on ethics to guide it and prevent misconduct.

Historically, medicine is the field where ethics have developed the most. Early concerns focused on the limits of patient testing and human dignity, particularly regarding autonomy.<fnref n="139" /> However, other disciplines also face moral dilemmas, especially technology, with the rapid rise of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in recent years.

<footnote n="138">¹³⁸ For more details see p. 197 in [BKE18].</footnote>

<footnote n="139">¹³⁹ Historically, state-supported large-scale ethical violations in research were a major reason for developing ethical codes [ARE19]. For example, Nazi human experimentation was deemed a crime against humanity and led to the creation of the Nuremberg Code, which established principles for human experimentation [ARE20].</footnote>
The advancement of information technology drives the evolution of research ethics today. As technology progresses, new ethical questions arise, such as the legal responsibility of self-driving cars in case of accidents, the privacy limits of facial recognition and deepfake technologies, and the accountability of AI decision-making systems used in warfare.

## Major issues

Ethics is a broad branch of philosophy, which is of a theoretical nature. However, in research, the emphasis is more on practical applications, such as protecting the rights of participants, rather than on theoretical questions like the origins of ethics or defining good and bad.

This section covers various aspects of applied ethics in detail, including honesty, objectivity, transparency, copyrights, environmental responsibility, and data protection. The first three focus on research conduct,
while the latter three relate more to the research
process itself.

Each section begins with an introduction that defines
the aspect and its scope. This is followed by examples
of well-known scandals or controversies that
highlight the impact of that ethical issue on research.
Finally, recommendations are provided to help
researchers adhere to ethical standards.

Honesty

Science is fundamentally grounded in empirical
evidence, leaving no room for emotions or
subjectivity. and, the research process must is
expected to with truthfulness and transparency.
Researchers must to maintain honesty with
themselves, the scientific community, and the public.

There are numerous practices that can undermine
honesty in research, most notably:

* Falsifying or incompletely presenting research methods to prevent others from
replicating the work, thereby keeping potential achievements solely for oneself.

* Deliberately misinterpreting results or collected samples, which constitutes cheating and violates research integrity.

* Stealing others' findings, including research subjects, methods, and results.

* Unfairly securing grants and funds, which violates the principle of equal opportunity.

Dishonesty can severely backfire on researchers, potentially setting back entire fields of study. Just one instance of dishonesty can undermine years of work and weaken the fundamental trust that science relies on.

Public trust in science is heavily influenced by researchers' honesty. When the public sees scientists as trustworthy and ethical, they are more likely to support scientific efforts and accept scientific
findings.<fnref n="140" /> This trust is crucial for public policies, health recommendations, and environmental actions based on scientific evidence. Conversely, when dishonesty or misconduct is revealed, it can lead to widespread skepticism and cynicism about scientific research, resulting in resistance to scientific advice, reduced research funding, and decreased public engagement with science.

A well-known case of fraud that severely impacted a scientific field is the Piltdown Man hoax. In 1912, amateur archaeologist Charles Dawson claimed to have discovered the “missing link” between early apes and humans. The fraud gained serious acceptance when findings were published in the reputable “Quarterly Journal of the Geological

<footnote n="140">¹⁴⁰ Misinformation, conspiracy theories, and lack of trust in scientific findings posed significant threats to public health and undermined governmental efforts globally during the COVID-19 vaccination campaign in 2021. For more details, see [BKE19].</footnote>
Society”.<fnref n="141" /> However, the discovery was inconsistent with the existing knowledge of evolution and the archaeological record at that time. It took nearly 40 years for “The Time” to reveal that the Piltdown Man case was a fraud.<fnref n="142" /> This incident still significantly affects people's acceptance of the theory of evolution in the United Kingdom, particularly due to the long time it took to expose the hoax.

Maintaining honesty in research not only enhances the credibility of individual studies but also strengthens the foundation of scientific knowledge upon which future research builds. Achieving this in research involves several key practices:

<footnote n="141">¹⁴¹ An article titled: “On the Discovery of a Paleolithic Human Skull and Mandible in a Flint-bearing Gravel Overlying the Wealden (Hastings Beds) at Piltdown, Fletching (Sussex)” was published in December 1912, authored by Charles Dawson and Sir Arthur Smith Woodward, a fellow of the Royal Society of London, See the [ARE21] for more details.</footnote>

<footnote n="142">¹⁴² The Time's article was published on the 30th of November 1953, it was titled: “Science: End As a Man”, refer to [WEB11].</footnote>
*   **Comprehensive data presentation:** Researchers should avoid selectively presenting results that support a particular hypothesis while omitting contradictory findings. All data points, even those that may not align with initial expectations, must be included and discussed. This practice prevents bias and ensures that the conclusions drawn are based on a comprehensive analysis of all available evidence.

*   **Accurate reporting of methods, data, and findings:** Researchers must precisely describe the procedures they follow in conducting experiments or investigations. This includes detailing the equipment used, the parameters measured, and the conditions under which experiments were carried out. Such transparency allows others to replicate the study and verify its outcomes. Transparency will be discussed in detail next.
* **Avoiding misrepresentation and exaggeration:** this is achieved by presenting findings accurately without overstating their significance. Researchers should avoid making sweeping generalisations beyond what the data can support. Scientific language should be used to describe the implications of the findings, acknowledging any limitations or uncertainties inherent in the research.

## Objectivity

Objectivity implies that the researcher maintains complete independence from the subject under study. The researcher should have no material or moral gain or interest in the research outcomes. Objectivity is essential for unbiased judgment of the obtained results, ensuring they are analysed as they are, without any intention to amplify or diminish their impact.
When a researcher violates objectivity, they become subjective. There are several sources of subjectivity, most notably:

*   **The Researcher himself:** Sometimes, the researcher may have personal hypotheses and may attempt to prove them despite contrary evidence from multiple studies by other researchers. In this case, the researcher is trying to prove that the ideas were valid for no reason except that they are his.

In other cases, supervisors pressure researchers to complete their research quickly for financial or academic reasons, such as the end of a contract or the academic year.

In this situation, the researcher may prioritise finishing on time, which can conflict with the research goals if delays or the need for additional tests or analysis arise.

*   **Ethical and cultural bias:** This occurs when the ideas from the social environment where
the researcher resides, or has resided,
influence the research, often manifesting as
prejudgment without solid evidence.

For example, race science<fnref n="143" /> was a common
and widely accepted practice in Europe and
the United States until the end of WWII.

Despite the lack of empirical evidence to
support its claims, researchers reflected the
social classifications of their era.

Another example is the biblical expeditions<fnref n="144" />
in the Holy Land in the mid-19th century.

<footnote n="143">¹⁴³ Also known as scientific racism and biological racism, a pseudoscience claims that the humans are divided into biologically distinct categories called “races” and that empirical evidence exists to support or justify racial discrimination, racial inferiority, or racial superiority. Refer to Vol. 2, p. 779 in [ABE20] more information.</footnote>

<footnote n="144">¹⁴⁴ For example, in 1863, Louis Félicien de Saulcy (1807 – 1880) received permission from the Ottoman authorities to excavate in the Holy Land. He discovered the Tombs of the Kings in Jerusalem and mistakenly identified them as the tombs of the House of David (circa 950 BCE). Later, it was determined that the tomb belonged to Helena of Adiabene, dating to around 56 CE, over 900 years after de Saulcy's estimate. The sarcophagus is now housed in the Louvre under Accession Number AO 5029, see [WEB12] for more details.</footnote>
These expeditions aimed to follow the biblical narrative despite the lack of historical evidence. As research progressed, archaeological findings increasingly contradicted the biblical narrative. By the end of the century, archaeologists recognised that while some biblical records might have some historical basis, they were far from being historically accurate.

*   **Financial pressures from funders:** Entities that provide funds might try to manipulate the results to serve their own interests. Researchers in such situations may interpret data under the risk of having their findings suppressed, potentially leading to biased results.

In the pharmaceutical industry, a company funding research on its drugs has a direct interest in studies that demonstrate the drug's efficacy and safety. In environmental
research, industries known to cause environmental harm, such as the oil and gas industry, also fund studies. These pressures might not aim to deny negative environmental effects but rather to downplay them or highlight economic benefits.<fnref n="145" /> In both examples, the financial interests of the funders can create conflicts of interest, leading to compromised research integrity and potentially misleading conclusions.

Achieving objectivity is a complex process that demands intentional and thoughtful effort. The following checklist can help avoid subjectivity:

<footnote n="145">¹⁴⁵ Refer to Clair Cameron Patterson (1922–1995), an American geochemist who began a campaign in 1965 to remove lead from gasoline [ARE22]. Despite being a leading expert in his field, major industry players pressured to exclude him from the National Research Council Panel on Atmospheric Lead Contamination. Nevertheless, Patterson persisted and eventually proved that lead levels in blood, soil, and air were extremely high and dangerous to humans. This led to the mandate for unleaded gasoline, resulting in significant industry changes for public health, check [ARE23] for details.</footnote>
* **Separating facts from opinions:** It is crucial not to mix opinions or desires with findings. There should be a clear distinction between facts and opinions to avoid subjectivity. It is recommended for researchers to verify facts from multiple reliable sources, especially if the information aligns with the researchers' beliefs or predictions.

* **Relying on empirical evidence:** This means strictly using systematic observation or experiments to gather data. An objective researcher accepts only what has been tested and proven to produce consistent results that can be predicted and understood through mathematical equations or models. The use of critical thinking is crucial in this context, as it ensures rational,
skeptical, and unbiased analysis and
evaluation of the subject
being studied.

*   **Follow the peer review process:** As discussed earlier in Chapter 4, peer review is an essential mechanism where independent experts in the same field evaluate the work, assessing both its validity and objectivity. The process should be immune to any exterior influences and the identities of both reviewers and authors are typically kept hidden to maintain objectivity.

Transparency

Transparency in research involves making every part
of the research process open and accessible to
everyone, including the general public, peer
researchers, and stakeholders. This means sharing
detailed information about the research methods
followed, data collected, and analyses conducted, so
that other researchers can reproduce the work or
build upon it, and the public can understand
its context.

As discussed in Chapter 4, reproducibility is the ability
of independent researchers to obtain the same
results using the same methods, data, and conditions
as the original study. Reproducibility ensures the
validity of findings and helps reduce errors. It is a
fundamental aspect of the scientific method, and
transparency is key to achieving it.

A well-known example highlighting the importance of
transparency is the Climatic Research Unit (CRU)
email controversy, commonly referred to as
Climategate.<fnref n="146" /> In 2009, thousands of emails and files
from the CRU at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in
the UK were hacked and made public. The content of
these emails sparked widespread controversy, with

<footnote n="146">¹⁴⁶ See more details on this incident in [ARE24].</footnote>
climate change skeptics accusing CRU scientists of withholding data from other researchers, misrepresenting the data, and attempting to influence the peer-review process to silence the opposite perspectives.

Multiple independent investigations were conducted,<fnref n="147" /> all of which concluded that there was no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. However, despite these findings, the incident fuelled significant skepticism about the validity of climate science. As a result, the perceived lack of transparency severely damaged public trust in a crucial issue and provided long-lasting support to climate change skeptics.

<footnote n="147">¹⁴⁷ There were eight independent committees who looked into the subject: (1) House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (2) Independent Climate Change Review (UK) (3) International Science Assessment Panel (UK) (4) Pennsylvania State University first panel & (5) second panel (US) (6) United States Environmental Protection Agency (US) (7) Department of Commerce (US) (8) National Science Foundation (US).</footnote>
Researchers can take several steps to avoid secrecy and promote transparency:

*   **Maintaining a Transparent Research Log:** Many laboratories keep a research diary that is accessible to everyone in the lab or even the general public. This diary includes a detailed record of the research process, decisions made, and any changes to the methods. These entries offer a comprehensive overview of the research's progress.

*   **Open Access:** It involves making raw data, methods, and protocols publicly available in repositories so that others can verify and reanalyse the findings. By providing detailed descriptions, other researchers can replicate the study. Open access also includes publishing results in open-access journals, ensuring that research is accessible to a broader audience without paywalls. In the
last decade, this practice has becoming
increasingly common in research.

* **Disclosure of Funding:** Researchers must identify their sources of funding, with no ambiguity, to avoid potential conflicts of interest and maintain the integrity of the research.

Copyrights

Creative works are protected by legal rights that last
many years after they are published or after the
author's death.<fnref n="148" /> This means using these works or
materials based on them requires written permission
from the rights holder. The rights holder could be the
author, their heirs, or an entity like a publishing

<footnote n="148">¹⁴⁸ There is no uniform law around the world to protect intellectual property rights, and laws vary by country in many details, such as what constitutes a creative work and the duration of protection, which can be up to 100 years after the death of the author or the publication date, if the author is unknown. See [WEB13] for more information on copyright status by country.</footnote>
house. Using these materials without permission
breaks the law and may result in fines.

Creative works, includes, but not limited to texts,
images, videos, drawings, computer programs,
artwork, and architecture. This protection is often
indicated by a © symbol, clearly mentioned in a text
form. However, even without any of these, the work
is generally assumed to be protected unless stated
otherwise.<fnref n="149" /> The duration of legal protection varies
depending on the type of work and the country. After
this period, the work enters the Public Domain (PD)
and can be used by anyone without
legal consequences.<fnref n="150" />

A common copyright violation among researchers is
plagiarism. This happens when a text is copied from

<footnote n="149">149 This book is published under a Creative Commons license. For details about rights and obligations, see the license page.</footnote>

<footnote n="150">150 For example, the copyrights on Mickey Mouse, the famous Disney character, expired on January 1, 2024. This means that from this date, anyone can use this character for any purpose, including commercial uses, without any legal consequences.</footnote>
other works without citation, making it seem like the copier is the original author. If needed, text from the original work can be quoted directly, or it can be properly rephrased while keeping the original idea. In both cases, the original author must be cited in the text using the appropriate citation style.

To avoid violating copyrighted materials, a researcher should:

1. Verify the copyright laws in their own country and the country where the work he will use is published. This helps understand the legal status of the work and how to use it without violation.

2. Obtain permission from the copyright holder if the materials are to be used commercially.

3. If the researcher has no permission, but there is an urgent need to use the materials non-commercially, a proper citation to the original work and author can work.
## Environment

There is no alternative to Earth. If the planet is ruined and becomes uninhabitable, there is no plan B. Therefore, research must prioritise environmental sustainability. This means guiding researchers to conduct studies that balance the pursuit of knowledge with the responsible management of natural resources and respect for all forms of life. Research is a key driver of industry. Over the past decade, awareness of human-made pollution's impact on the planet has increased, largely due to the widespread effects of climate change.

However, Companies that fund research are driven by profit and often view nature solely as a resource to be exploited for maximum gain. This perspective should not influence research. Instead, research should adhere to the principle of non-maleficence<fnref n="151" />,

<footnote n="151">¹⁵¹ Also known in Latin as “Primum non nocere”, this core principle of medical ethics states that a physician must not harm the patient. Over time, the scope of this principle has been</footnote>
which focuses on minimising harm to ecosystems, wildlife, and communities, in the short and long term.

Environmental crises, such as pollution and biodiversity loss, have significant effects across both space and time. While the immediate impact might be confined to a specific area, its consequences are global. For instance, the melting of ice in the North Pole is not restricted to that region alone. It causes sea levels to rise worldwide, threatening coastal cities in both industrial and growing countries.

Environmental crises are also generational, meaning their effects are not limited to current population, but extends to impact future generations as well.

Renewable energy<fnref n="152" /> is a research field that has expanded rapidly due to increased environmental

broadened to apply not only to physicians but also to researchers across all fields, extending its relevance to the protection of the environment as a whole.

<footnote n="152">¹⁵² Also known as green energy, a field of electrical engineering that involves the study of human-made systems designed to collect and distribute energy from natural renewable resources,</footnote>
awareness. Although it is a branch of electrical engineering, it remained relatively obscure before the 2000s. However, in less than 20 years, interest in this field has surged, making it a hub of innovation and research. The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) reported an annual average growth of 112% in the number of patents filed in this field between 2000 and 2016, with the total number of related patents rising from around 11,000 in 2000 to over half a million by 2016.<fnref n="153" />

Incorporating sustainability into research can have a significant impact on the results. Introducing a focus on eco-friendly solutions allows for a shift from traditional methods and themes. This approach requires researchers to be flexible and adaptable having the capacity to integrate new practices into their own research models.

such as solar, wind, and hydropower. The goal is to enhance the efficiency of these systems, reduce their costs, and make them easier to install and use.

<footnote n="153">¹⁵³ Full report can be found in [WEB14].</footnote>
Additionally, many changes in the working environment can reduce the ecological impact of the research, as a process itself. This includes adopting ecological policies such as:

* **Digital Research:** This involves moving away from traditional resource use and embracing green technologies in everyday research. For example, shifting to paperless meetings and communication instead of relying on paper notes and postal mail. It is also possible to publish results in only-online academic journals. This can help reduce the number of printed papers, thereby reducing the environmental impact of research.

* **Energy Efficiency:** This involves improving the energy use of lab equipment, computers, cooling systems, and lighting. New policies can be developed to ensure that equipment is turned off when not in use and to implement
flexible working hours that align with daylight hours, thereby reducing energy consumption.

## Privacy and data protection

When people participate in a study, personal data may be collected for research purposes. This can range from general information like names, phone numbers, or addresses, to more sensitive data such as medical records or political views. Therefore, it is crucial to take special precautions to protect participants' privacy.

While awareness of the importance of privacy, particularly digital privacy, has significantly increased in the last decade, there is still no universal standard for data protection worldwide. Laws vary from country to country, and sometimes even between states within the same country. Therefore, it is inevitable to thoroughly understand and comply with local regulations regarding the collection, storage, and sharing of personal data for research purposes.
The Facebook-Cambridge Analytica data scandal is an example that illustrate how data privacy violations can escalate on a global scale in the digital age, affecting millions of people.<fnref n="154" /> The scandal was a global violation of Facebook user privacy in the mid-2010s. Cambridge Analytica, a British political consulting company, developed an application that generated quizzes for Facebook users. However, the application not only gathered data from users who took the quiz but also accessed personal information from their friends and collected additional information from participants' profiles beyond the quiz questions. This extensive data collection occurred without the explicit consent of the majority affected. The data was then analysed to understand users' personalities and predict their choices.<fnref n="155" />

<footnote n="154">¹⁵⁴ A detailed background can be found in [ARE25].</footnote>

<footnote n="155">¹⁵⁵ More on the Psychological targeting in [ARE26].</footnote>
In total, data was collected from around 87 million Facebook users.<fnref n="156" /> The scandal had significant political implications worldwide. There is ongoing debate about whether the Trump presidential campaign<fnref n="157" /> in 2016 and the Brexit campaign<fnref n="158" /> in the UK benefited from this data analysis to design more targeted and effective campaigns.

Protecting the privacy of collected data is the researcher's responsibility. The process begins with thoughtfully considering what information is necessary to collect. Any redundant or irrelevant data that does not contribute to the research should not be gathered. The data collection process should be carefully designed to ensure the anonymity of

<footnote n="156">156 This number was provided by Mike Schroepfer, Chief Technology Officer of Facebook, in a 2018 article on the Meta Newsroom blog, see [WEB15]. However, the actual number could be higher, as this value was based on a dependent source</footnote>

<footnote n="157">157 Donald John Trump (1946- ) the 45th and the 47th president of the United States of America.</footnote>

<footnote n="158">158 Abbreviated from “British exit”, the acronym refers to the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union (EU), following a referendum held in 2016.</footnote>
participants, making sure that no individual can be
identified from the collected data.

When processing data, it is crucial to ensure that it is
not shared with unauthorised individuals, whether
within the researcher's institution or with any third
party involved in the research. Additionally,
uploading the results to the public internet for
sharing purposes is strictly prohibited.

Another important aspect that should not be
underestimated is the consent of the participants. All
individuals involved in any experiment or survey must
be fully aware of their participation and have the
right to refuse or withdraw at any time. The entire
process must be transparent, and participants need
to clearly express that they are voluntarily taking
part. In some countries or situations, it may be
necessary to obtain written permission signed by
each participant.

The following checklist summarise the previous
paragraph in a form of a verifiable checklist:
* **Informed consent:** The researcher must provide participants with clear and comprehensive information about the research. If sensitive data is involved, obtaining signed written consent is essential.

* **Anonymisation:** To protect participant identities, the researcher should ensure that individuals cannot be identified from the data. Using pseudonyms or codes instead of real names is recommended.

* **Data minimisation:** The researcher should limit data collection to only what is necessary for achieving the research objectives.

* **Secure data storage and sharing:** Access to data should be restricted to authorised individuals. This can be done by securely storing physical documents in locked locations and digitally protecting data through encryption and secure methods for data transfer and sharing.
## Ethics integration in the research

With all the previously mentioned issues in the hand, ensuring research integrity within an institution is a challenging task. Typically, any institution engaged in research must have an independent body, often called the Institutional Review Board (IRB) or Ethics Committee, that oversees ethical guidelines and regulations customised to the institution's specific context. This committee also ensures that all research activities are conducted ethically and responsibly.

There is not a single, universal set of ethical regulations that every institution must follow. Instead, IRBs establish policies, procedures, protocols, and standards that align with the institution's context, comply with local laws, and meet international requirements. These regulations are designed to protect the rights and welfare of research participants, other living beings, and the
environment. Additionally, these guidelines should
be flexible and able to adapt to changes over time.

One of the IRB's primary responsibilities is to ensure
data confidentiality by overseeing how researchers
follow procedures and comply with local laws when
handling sensitive information. For instance,
institutions that manage medical records in the US
must strictly adhere to the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA).<fnref n="159" />
Violations of this law can result in civil or criminal
penalties for the institution or individuals involved.

Similarly, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR),<fnref n="160" /> in effect across the EU since May 25, 2018,

<footnote n="159">159 The EU regulation governing the processing of personal data is formally titled “Regulation on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (Data Protection Directive)”. This regulation was established by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union in 2016, see [WEB16] for details.</footnote>

<footnote n="160">¹⁶⁰ The US federal law concerning health information, commonly known as the Kennedy–Kassebaum Act, is officially titled “An Act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to improve</footnote>
must be respected by all research institutions within
the EU.

The IRB also examines potential conflicts of interest
in research conducted within the institution and
assists researchers in resolving any such issues.
Additionally, as new technologies emerge, the IRB is
responsible for addressing these evolving challenges
and providing temporary guidance or procedures. For
instance, with the rapid advancement of AI, several
copyright issues have arisen concerning works
created by non-human entities. Legal cases on such
matters can take years to resolve in court. During this
time, the IRB, in collaboration with the institution's
legal office, plays a crucial role in advising researchers

portability and continuity of health insurance coverage in the
group and individual markets, to combat waste, fraud, and
abuse in health insurance and health care delivery, to promote
the use of medical savings accounts, to improve access to long-
term care services and coverage, to simplify the administration
of health insurance, and for other purposes". It was enacted by
the United States Congress in 1996 [WEB17].
by offering consultations, recommendations, and
best practices to navigate the situation.

The IRB also serves an educational role within its institution. For staff or early-carrier researchers, such as Ph.D. candidates or those in higher education, the IRB offers support alongside research supervisors. The committee often organises workshops or educational programs within the institution to introduce new concepts, explain updates to local laws, or simply raise awareness about the importance of ethics in research.

**Common ethical violation**

Misconduct can happen in the research field. No one, including researchers, is immune to breaking the code of conduct, and ethical violations can occur at any time by anyone.

In the next section, three common violations will be discussed: Fabrication, Falsification, and
Plagiarism (FFP). Each violation will be defined, with a focus on how to be avoided.

## Fabrication & falsification

Fabrication involves creating data that was never actually observed or collected during experiments. It is an act of manipulating findings intentionally to direct results in a desired direction. On the other hand, falsification<fnref n="161" /> involves deliberately altering collected data to support specific claims or hypotheses. This is not only limited to manipulating the data itself but also extends to modifying the tools used in the experiment or for recording the data in a way that discards unwanted results.

Unintentional manipulation of data can occur due to improper research procedures or lack of skills with equipment, leading to measurement errors or incorrect readings. Failures in controlling

<footnote n="161">¹⁶¹ It is important not to confuse falsification with falsifiability, which refers to the ability of a proposition, hypothesis, or theory to be proven false.</footnote>
experimental conditions can also result in
unintentional data manipulation. However, these are
not considered fabrication nor falsification because
they lack the element of intent.

The Schön scandal in electronics in the early 2000s is
an example of data fabrication.<fnref n="162" /> Named after Jan
Hendrik Schön, a physicist at Bell Labs who worked
on organic electronics. The scandal involved Schön
publishing numerous papers in high-impact journals
like Nature and Science. He claimed to have
discovered ways to create organic transistors with
unprecedented efficiency. However, other scientists
began to doubt his findings when they could not
replicate the results. Later investigations revealed
that Schön had fabricated and manipulated data in
multiple publications, made up experimental results
that were never observed, and reused the same data
sets for different experiments.

<footnote n="162">162 See [ARE27] for details.</footnote>
As a result, Schön's doctoral degree was revoked for "dishonourable conduct", and dozens of his peer-reviewed papers were withdrawn,<fnref n="163" /> severely damaging the credibility of the field of organic electronics worldwide.

The Lancet MMR<fnref n="164" /> autism fraud is a prime example of data falsification in medicine. In 1998, Andrew Wakefield<fnref n="165" /> and his colleagues published a peer-reviewed paper titled "Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children"<fnref n="166" /> in the highly reputable journal: The Lancet. In their study, the authors claimed to find a link between the MMR

<footnote n="163">¹⁶³ In total, Science withdrew nine articles written by Schön, Nature withdrew seven articles written by Schön, Physical Review withdrew six articles, Applied Physics Letters withdrew four articles. All articles written between 2000 and 2002.</footnote>

<footnote n="164">¹⁶⁴ MMR stands for measles, mumps, and rubella, three viral diseases that affect humans.</footnote>

<footnote n="165">¹⁶⁵ Andrew Jeremy Wakefield (1956- ), a former British physician figure known for his fraudulent activities, discredited academic work, anti-vaccine activism.</footnote>

<footnote n="166">¹⁶⁶ See [ARE28] for more details.</footnote>
vaccine and autism, describing a new syndrome they called “autistic enterocolitis”.

Later investigations, led by the UK's General Medical Council (GMC), revealed that Wakefield had falsified the medical histories and diagnoses of the children to make it seem like they were diagnosed with autism shortly after receiving the vaccine. The study suggested that 8 out of 12¹⁶⁷ children were diagnosed with autism, but medical records showed that only one child had autism, and three had not been diagnosed with autism at all. In 2010, GMC found that Wakefield acted dishonestly and misled others in his research. As a result, The Lancet fully retracted Wakefield's publication.

The impact on public health was severe. Wakefield's claims triggered widespread fear and skepticism about vaccine safety, leading to a significant decline in vaccination rates globally. This decline resulted in

<footnote n="167">¹⁶⁷ It is also important to note that the sample size was too small to draw such a conclusion.</footnote>
outbreaks of measles, mumps, and rubella, diseases that had been largely controlled through vaccination.

Fabrication and falsification are unacceptable practices and forms of misconduct that should never be committed by researchers. However, unintentional fabrication or falsification can happen due to not following proper procedures and protocols. As discussed earlier, fabrication and falsification mainly involve the integrity of data.

Therefore, to avoid unintentional violations related to these misconducts, careful attention must be given to data handling at three key stages:

*   **Pre-data acquisition:** Researcher needs to define the methodological steps in details before collecting data, including what to measure, how to measure it, and where to store the results. It is crucial to establish and adhere to the method without making changes during or after data collection to fit the findings.
*   **During data acquisition:** Data needs to be stored accurately as it is collected. The storage medium used to store the data has to preserve it, as it is, without changing over time. It is also important to ensure that the speed of data generation is matched by the storage system to avoid data loss or corruption.

*   **Post-data acquisition:** This covers the use of appropriate mathematical methods to process the data. It is acceptable to use functions to classify data or to reduce noise, but the parameters of these functions must be set carefully to avoid manipulating the data in a desired direction.

Additionally, it is advisable to have an independent scientific advisor review the research method and ensure that it is resistant to both fabrication and falsification.
Plagiarism

Plagiarism occurs when someone, called a plagiarist, uses words, expressions, or ideas from others without giving them credit, making it seem like their own work. While not usually a crime, plagiarism is taken very seriously in academia because it violates research integrity. Students or professors who plagiarise could be permanently expelled from their educational institution.

In academia, there is no universally agreed-upon definition of plagiarism. For instance, the Honor Code at Stanford University characterises plagiarism as:<fnref n="168" />

> "Use, without giving reasonable and
> appropriate credit to or acknowledging the
> author or source, of another person's original
> work, whether such work is made up of code,

<footnote n="168">¹⁶⁸ See Stanford university’s policies and guidance in [WEB18].</footnote>
formulas, ideas, language, research,
strategies, writing or other form”

Yale, in New Haven, Connecticut, defines plagiarism
as follows:<fnref n="169" />

"Use of another's work, words, or ideas
without attribution [...] using a source's
language without quoting, using information
from a source without attribution, and
paraphrasing a source in a form that stays too
close to the original"

On the other hand, at Princeton University,
Plagiarism is:<fnref n="170" />

<footnote n="169">¹⁶⁹ The text is quoted from Teaching materials for Yale students, refer to [WEB19].</footnote>

<footnote n="170">¹⁷⁰ The text is from a document titled "Defining and Avoiding Plagiarism: The WPA Statement on Best Practices", released by the Council of Writing Program Administrators at Princeton University in January 2003, refer to [WEB20].</footnote>
"The deliberate [use of] someone else's language, ideas, or other original (not common knowledge) material without acknowledging its source"

Plagiarism is not just about copying someone else's writing without giving credit. There are four possible forms of plagiarism, all involving failure to cite the original author, but differing in how they copy the work:

* **Characters-preserving:** Copying the original work exactly, as it is, character for character.

* **Syntax-preserving:** Keeping the original word order when copying but replacing the words with synonyms.

* **Semantics-preserving:** Maintaining the same meanings, order, and narrative of the original work, but using different words and sentence
structures to express it. This kind of Plagiarism
includes translation and paraphrasing.

* **Idea-preserving:** Using someone else's main ideas to develop new projects, like startups or research theses.

Given the various definitions and forms of plagiarism,
it can be challenging to detect unless it is Characters-
preserving. This is also can be achieved using online
plagiarism detectors. In other cases, when
professors, researchers, or students are suspected of
plagiarism, judgments cannot be generalised.
Therefore, an internal disciplinary committee, within
the educational institution, typically evaluates each
case individually to determine if plagiarism
has occurred.

Plagiarism must be avoided by all means. The first
and most important step is to understand what
constitutes plagiarism and what does not. Next, it is
crucial to define the research's contribution,
assessing its originality compared to existing works.
Avoiding plagiarism does not mean avoiding the use of others' works. Instead, it emphasises the need to properly cite them. Even when paraphrasing or rewording, citation is critical and cannot be ignored. Additionally, seeking permission from original authors to use their works can foster collaboration. However, having permission does not eliminate the need for citation.

Researchers are also advised to use online plagiarism detectors on their own work before submission to ensure it is free from any form of plagiarism.

<figure><img src="image_62.png" /></figure>
# On writing and publishing

## Introduction

The scientific method is an integral process where each step must be executed accurately to achieve reliable results. In Chapter 4, the method was thoroughly discussed, with a focus on its ongoing and cyclical nature. Publishing was identified as the final step that completes this cycle, serving as a crucial communication tool for researchers.

Before publishing any material, the ideas, results, and analysis must be written down in detail and coherently, following the scientific method. Scientific writing emphasises structure and standardisation. Unlike creative writing, where authors can freely express themselves, scientific writing requires authors to be objective and follow a specific set of rules that are widely accepted by researchers.
The importance of publishing lies in how it contributes to the scientific record, particularly through the citation of others' work, which is a cornerstone of the scientific method. For accurate citations, the original work must be published, making the knowledge accessible, verifiable, and properly attributed to the original authors. A robust scientific record is essential for advancing science, as it prevents the redundancy of repeating past work and ensures the progress.

Publication is essential for ensuring reproducibility, a critical feature that defines credible science. In research, publications go beyond merely presenting results. They provide a detailed account of the methods used and the conditions under which the research was conducted. This level of detail allows other researchers to replicate the study and verify the results under the same conditions.

Moreover, publishing reinforces the ethical dimensions of research. As discussed in Chapter 7,
transparency is a fundamental ethical principle. This
process helps prevent scientific misconduct, such as
data fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism.
Additionally, publication serves as a means of sharing
knowledge, contributing to the public good and
benefiting humanity as a whole.

This chapter covers the scientific style of writing and
the publication of scientific works. It starts with
general guidelines on scientific writing showing how
to avoid subjectivity and adhere to the scientific
method. The chapter, and the book, conclude with a
detailed overview of different types of publications.

Scientific writing

Scientific communication values consistency and
standardisation to ensure clarity and reproducibility.

While there is no universally accepted standard for
scientific writing, certain key principles are widely
recognised. These include the need for clarity and
precision, maintaining author objectivity, and the
importance of proper citations and references.

In the next section,<fnref n="171" /> various notes address common
writing and formatting challenges researchers may
encounter while preparing their final manuscript for
publication. Topics include best practices for avoiding
unclear wording, choosing fonts and text styles, and
tips for using figures and lists effectively.

*   **Final format:** The first question to consider before starting to write is whether the final format will be digital or printed. Over the past two decades, there has been a significant shift towards fully digital materials, and scientific publications are no exception. This shift is largely driven by the widespread availability of the Internet and the ease with which digital documents can be shared, stored, and

<footnote n="171">¹⁷¹ This is not an exhaustive list, but it does cover many common issues authors encounter when writing and suggests best practices to address them. The most practical use of these notes is to turn them into a checklist for verification.</footnote>
accessed. However, printed formats remain
an option.

In digital formats, there are no strict rules
about page order, so aligning the internal
cover and chapter starting pages on odd-
numbered pages is not required, though it is
still recommended. Additionally, concerns
about the flipping side of pages, which are
particularly relevant in right-to-left languages
like Arabic and Hebrew, do not apply to
digital formats.

Even if the digital format is chosen, it is
important to remember that clickable
elements, such as embedded links, will not
function if the document is printed. For this
reason, it is advised not to rely on embedded
links. Instead, all web links in the reference
section, for example, should be written out in
full so that they remain accessible and useful
in printed form.
*   **Well-designed and coherent structure:** The most important aspect of scientific writing is having a well-designed structure. This has been discussed in the chapters before, but in summary: the problem should be introduced first, followed by the literature review, method, results, analysis, conclusion and future directions, and finally, the references. Although there may be slight variations, all scientific works generally follow this structure.

Clarity and consistency are crucial within each section. Paragraphs should be logically connected, creating a smooth flow that guides the reader from start to finish. To achieve this, it is important to plan each section carefully, avoiding the presentation of unrelated information. The introduction of the work should outline this structure for the reader. A similar approach can be applied to
each chapter or part, with a closing paragraph in the introduction explaining its overall structure.

If not explicitly required, adding section numbers before titles, such as 1.1, 1.2, 1.2.1, and 1.2.2, is not necessary. However, attention should be given to the overall structure. Typically, well-organised work includes four or five levels. If more levels are needed, it may indicate that the current structure is not ideal. Having too many levels can complicate the structure, making it difficult for the reader to follow and potentially disrupting the coherence of the work.

A common mistake in substructure creation is the introduction of a new section with only one subsection. For example, when section 1.3 is divided to include only 1.3.1, the substructure becomes unnecessary. In such
cases, the division is considered ineffective. If
only one part is created, indicating that the
structure requires revision.

*   **Footnotes usage:** Footnotes are used to include additional information that is not directly related to the main topic but still important to mention.<fnref n="172" /> This fits new ideas or concepts when being introduced and requires further explanation, but the added text is beyond the scope of the main text. The footnotes are also ideal for citing reference labels, as well as presenting the original names of books or people in their native languages, and to add original texts of quotations.

However, the length of footnotes should be
kept in check. Except for certain works, like
historical manuscripts or legal documents,
footnotes should generally not exceed 25% of

<footnote n="172">¹⁷² This is a literary approach of writing called digression.</footnote>
the page. This is usually enough space for a
brief paragraph about the topic. If more
extensive information is needed, such as a
table or several paragraphs of original text, it
is better to use appendices and refer to them
in the footnotes.

It is a common mistake to use footnotes for
bibliographic information, which should
always be included in the references section
of the document. Similarly, quotations should
be placed in footnotes, not in the
references section.

* **Wording**: A key feature of scientific writing is that ideas must be communicated as clearly as possible using the simplest and most precise language. Researchers should avoid using filler words and ensure that the meaning is unambiguous.

Table 8-1 provides a list of words to avoid and
explains why they should be excluded. Note
that this list is not exhaustive and may
be expanded.

<table><caption>Table 8-1. words to be avoided in scientific writing</caption><thead><tr><th>Words</th><th>Reason to avoid using</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Stuff, things, a lot, good, bad, etc.</td><td>Vague or ambiguous</td></tr><tr><td>Amazing, beautiful, unbelievable, etc.</td><td>Subjective and emotional language</td></tr><tr><td><ul><li>The experiment did not go as planned; it was a real mess</li><li>The new software makes it super easy to crunch numbers and get results fast.</li><li>The new method totally blew our minds with its efficiency</li></ul></td><td>Colloquialisms and slang</td></tr><tr><td>Best, worst, most, least, etc.</td><td>Superlatives</td></tr><tr><td>Seems, apparently, probably, etc.</td><td>Hedging words</td></tr></tbody></table>

* **Text and Fonts:** It is a common mistake to use multiple fonts when formatting a final document. Only one font should be used throughout the entire document, including in the design of any graphics. The choice of font depends on several factors, including aesthetics, but the most important consideration is its availability. Some fonts are
copyrighted and require a fee or special
permission for use.

Publishers or institutions may have specific
rules that dictate text size. If no guidelines are
provided, care must be taken to avoid text
that is too small and difficult to read, or too
large, where only a few words fit on a line. It
is advisable to print a sample to ensure the
text size is appropriate. Different text sizes
may be used for titles, but not within the main
body of the text. Emphasising ideas by
increasing text size should be avoided. The
same principle applies to bolding, underlining,
and italics, they should be used only when
necessary, such as for the first sentence in a
list, and not for decorative purposes.

* **Numbers:** All numbers and dates should be written according to a specific system, typically based on guidelines provided by the publisher or institution. If no guidelines are
provided, the author must ensure consistency
throughout the document.

Arabic numerals (0, 1, 2, ... 9) are commonly
used for writing numbers because they are
universally recognised. Roman numerals<sup>173</sup> (I,
II, III, ...) can also be used for numbering, but
they may become difficult to interpret in
longer lists.

For numbers with decimal points, using a
period (.) is recommended. While other
characters, such as a comma (,), can be used.
The most important is the consistency within
the document.

<footnote n="173">¹⁷³ A non-positional numeral system, originally developed in the Roman Empire, continued to be used long after the empire's fall. This system uses the Latin alphabet to represent numbers (e.g., V for 5, X for 10, L for 50, C for 100, and M for 1000) and lacks a symbol for zero. Numbers are written using subtractive notation, making them more complex. For example, I represents 1, and IV represents 4. The number 246 is written as CCXLVI, which breaks down to 200 + (50 - 10) + (5 + 1). The system is fully replaced by Arabic numerals.</footnote>
* **Dates**: The key requirement is maintaining a uniform format throughout the document. Dates should be written using a single calendaring system, with the Gregorian calendar<sup>174</sup> being the preferred choice due to its global recognition. If necessary, equivalent dates in other calendars can be provided in parentheses. For example, August 19, 2024 (Safar 15, 1446H).<sup>175</sup>

Dates must also be presented in a consistent format, such as (YYYY-MM-DD)<sup>176</sup>. Using numbers only is advisable to prevent confusion, although formats like “21 July 2024” or “21 Jul. 2024” are also acceptable.

<footnote n="174"><sup>174</sup> A solar calendar introduced by Pope Gregory XIII in 1582 as a reform of the Julian calendar. It is now the most widely used and accepted calendar globally.</footnote>

<footnote n="175"><sup>175</sup> Also known as the Islamic or Arabic calendar, this is a lunar calendar used by Muslims to determine religious observances. The calendar consists of 12 lunar months, making up a year of 354 or 355 days. Safar is the second month of the Hijri calendar.</footnote>

<footnote n="176"><sup>176</sup> “Y” stands for “year”, “M” for “month” and “D” for “day”.</footnote>
* **Acronyms:** Creating an acronym involves forming a new word from the initial letters of each word in a phrase or name. For instance, “UN” stands for the United Nations. The use of acronyms is highly encouraged as they help shorten lengthy scientific terms and make complex sentences easier to read and understand.

If the document, such as a thesis or book, includes a list of acronyms, all acronyms used should be listed in alphabetical order to make the list searchable. Regardless, the first time an acronym appears in the text, the full name should be written out, followed by the acronym in parentheses. For example, “The United Nations (UN)”.

* **Colouring:** This applies to text, tables, and figures. If colour does not serve a specific purpose, such as helping to differentiate between groups or samples, colouring is not
recommended. Using colour purely for
aesthetic reasons introduces subjectivity and
can diminish the overall clarity of the work.
When colour is necessary, attention to
contrast is crucial. Contrast refers to the
difference in colour that makes text, or
objects in a figure, visually stand out from
their background. For example, blue text on a
blue background will create an unreadable
solid block because the contrast is zero.
Higher contrast improves text readability.
That is why a black text on a white
background is highly readable.

It is also essential to select colours that are
distinguishable for people with colour
blindness.<fnref n="177" /> For instance, red text on a green
background is not readable for those with
red-green colour blindness. Similarly, text

<footnote n="177">¹⁷⁷ Also known as Colour Vision Deficiency (CVD), it is the inability or reduced ability to see colour or distinguish between them under normal lighting conditions.</footnote>
with low contrast, like light grey on dark grey, can be difficult to read for individuals with other vision impairments.

It is advisable to print samples of coloured items in black and white to ensure that the intended distinctions are still clear. If they are not, adjustments to the contrast should be made. In some cases, using simple patterns can help differentiate objects, even when printed in black and white (Figure 8-1).

* **Figures**: they are an effective way to visually present complex concepts or large datasets, making ideas or comparisons more understandable. However, figures should not be used redundantly or simply to fill space. Instead, they must serve a direct purpose within the context of the work.

Each figure should have a unique number as an identifier, and every figure must be referenced at least once in the text. In shorter
works, such as academic articles, numbering
can start from 1. In longer works, like books
with multiple chapters, it is recommended to
include the chapter number in the figure label
and reset the numbering at the beginning of
each chapter. For example, Figure 8-3
indicates the third figure in Chapter 8.

<figure><img src="image_63.png" /><figcaption>Figure 8-1. Using colours to differentiate lines and areas: (a) Colours only (b) Colours with patterns (c) Colours with patterns when printed in black and white.</figcaption></figure>

Figures should present their information
concisely. It is important to avoid
overcrowded figures. If necessary, complex
figures should be split into multiple simpler
ones. The central idea should be the focal
point of the figure, and unnecessary white
space should be minimised. Colours and
patterns used in figures should be explained
in a legend box, and any labels should be
consistent in style.

Statistics play a crucial role in science, and
they are often easier to understand when
presented as graphics rather than tables of
numbers. However, there are many different
types of statistical graphics, each serving a
specific purpose. The challenge is selecting
the right chart to best represent the data.
Table 8-2 provides an overview of various
chart types, their uses, and examples
for each.

If the document includes a list of figures, all
figures should be listed in ascending order
based on their number. The guidelines for
fonts and colours mentioned earlier also
apply to figures.
<table><caption>Table 8-2. Common types of figures used in statistics, their best uses, and examples</caption><thead><tr><td>Figure Type</td><td>When to use</td><td>Example</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Histogram</td><td>Showing distribution of continuous data, especially for large datasets</td><td>Exam scores showing frequency distribution</td></tr><tr><td>Pie Chart</td><td>Displaying parts of a whole, typically with a small number of categories</td><td>Market share of different companies</td></tr><tr><td>Bar Chart</td><td>Comparing quantities of different categories or tracking changes over time</td><td>Sales figures for different months</td></tr><tr><td>Line Chart</td><td>Displaying trends over time or relationships between variables</td><td>Temperature changes over the year</td></tr><tr><td>Scatter Plot</td><td>Showing relationship between two variables</td><td>Height vs. weight for a group of individuals</td></tr><tr><td>Heatmap</td><td>Visualising data density in two-dimensional space</td><td>Website traffic by hour and day of the week</td></tr></tbody></table>

* **Lists:** This structure is used when elements of a group need to be compared in text form. If the order of elements matters, an enumerated list is used. If not, a bullet list is preferred. There are no specific guidelines for
choosing bullet styles, whether black (●), white (○), or other icons, unless explicitly stated. The same applies to enumerated lists, whether using lower-case letters (a, b, c ...), upper-case letters (A, B, C ...), or Roman numerals (I, II, III). All options are acceptable, but they should be used consistently throughout the document.

Multilevel lists, both enumerated and bulleted, can also be used when list items contain sub-lists, which is common in describing research methods or process with complex structures. Authors should be prepared to handle cases that require three- or four-level lists. As with single-level lists, the main recommendation is to maintain consistency in style. Care should be taken to avoid creating large white spaces due to indentation when using lists.
Types of publication

Although the primary goal of research is to advance human knowledge, not all research publications are designed to serve this end. For example, while academic journal articles aim to share findings with other researchers, popular science books are intended to simplify these findings, making them more accessible and easier to understand for a wider general audience.

Chapter 6 discussed the types of publications that can be cited in research, focusing on how to cite them correctly, particularly the required bibliographical details. Except for website on the Internet,<fnref n="178" /> all other types of publications, namely theses, peer-reviewed academic articles, research reports, and popular science books, are considered scientific.

<footnote n="178">¹⁷⁸ The content of internet websites can be considered scientific, but only if it has undergone a strict peer-review process. However, this is rarely the case, so it is generally safer to assume that the information on a website is not reliable unless there is clear evidence to the contrary.</footnote>
However, with this similarity shared, they differ in their objectives, structure, and intended audience.

The previously mentioned types of publications will be discussed in detail in the following sections, where their main types and characteristics will be explored. This will be followed by a comparative table outlining key aspects namely: subtypes, target audience, goals, estimated average of both number of pages and the number of references.

## Research theses

When a student pursues a post-bachelor's higher education degree, such as research master's degree or a Ph.D., they are required to submit a thesis. This involves completing an entire research project: defining a research problem, building a hypothesis, conducting experiments, collecting and analysing data, and writing a detailed research report, known as a thesis. This thesis is then reviewed by a panel of
experts in the field, and if the research is deemed
valid, the student is awarded the degree.<fnref n="179" />

Research master's program<fnref n="180" /> typically lasts one or
two years, during which students take various
courses depending on their specialty. Among these is
usually a research method course, where students
learn how to conduct research. Toward the end of the
program, there is often a dedicated semester focused
on practical research, where the student works in a
research laboratory, assisting with a project related
to their field of study. By the end of this semester, the
student must write and defend a thesis before an
official jury to earn their diploma.

<footnote n="179">¹⁷⁹ Also known as “viva voce” or simply “viva”, this term originates from Latin, literally meaning “by word of mouth”. It refers to an oral examination in which the candidate defends their thesis or dissertation before a panel of examiners, engaging in a spoken discussion about his research.</footnote>

<footnote n="180">¹⁸⁰ There are also Master of Professional Studies (MPS) programs, or simply Professional Master's programs, they focus on developing practical skills for current and aspiring professionals. However, this type of master's program is beyond the scope of this book.</footnote>
The research master's program is generally where researchers first learn the theory and practice of research. It primarily serves an educational purpose, so the quality of research produced may not always meet the standards of most research institutions. As a result, citations from master's theses are uncommon, though not impossible.

On the other hand, a Ph.D. student typically spends three to five years working on their thesis before submitting it. Unlike the master's degree, there are no learning modules, and the Ph.D. is often treated as a full-time job with a salary. While some teaching responsibilities may be included, the primary focus is on conducting research.

Given the extended time invested in their work and the experience Ph.D. students have when submitting their theses, Ph.D. theses are generally considered more reliable than Master's theses. However, because they are deeply rooted in a specific research subject, Ph.D. theses are considered primary
sources<fnref n="181" /> of knowledge. This closeness to the topic can lead to exaggerations, biases, or misinterpretations of the data, so they should be cited with care.

In general, theses are not printed and published for the public when they are to be defended. A few hard copies may be printed for the author and the jury members. The university's library where the thesis was submitted might also request a printed copy for their archives. Some authors later publish their theses as standalone books after reaching an agreement with a publishing house.

A research thesis follows an official structure that is widely accepted, which includes:

1. Title Page

2. Abstract

3. Acknowledgments

4. Table of contents

5. Lists of figures and tables

6. List of abbreviations

7. Content

8. Appendices

9. References

<footnote n="181">¹⁸¹ More on primary sources can be found in Chapter 6.</footnote>
The structure of the title page is determined by each institution, so there is not a universal template. However, most title pages include common elements such as the thesis title, the author's name, the institution and its logos, the department and degree program, the date of submission, and the supervisor's name. Figure 8-2 illustrates a typical title page structure.

The abstract is typically a one-page section that provides a descriptive overview of the thesis, usually covering the objectives, methods, results, and conclusions. The acknowledgments section is optional and allows the author to personally dedicate the work, often to family members or individuals who made significant contributions to the research.

The table of contents, the list of figures and the list of tables guide the reader to specific parts of the thesis by referencing page numbers. The table of contents lists the chapters and sections, while the lists of figures and tables refer to the figures and tables, as
their names suggest. If the thesis includes equations,
they must be numbered, and a list of equations may
be included after the list of tables. The list of
abbreviations provides an alphabetical list of
acronyms used in the thesis. In some theses, this list
may be placed at the end instead of the beginning.

<figure><img src="image_64.png" /><figcaption>Figure 8-2. Typical thesis title page</figcaption></figure>
The content section typically follows the steps of the research method, with a chapter dedicated to each of the following: an introduction to the research problem, a literature review serving as the state-of-the-art, the research method, the obtained results, the discussion and analysis, and a conclusion summarising the findings and future perspectives.

Finally, the appendices section includes supplementary material such as raw data, questionnaires templates, programming codes, or detailed descriptions of methods used. References are listed at the end, including all sources cited in the thesis.<fnref n="182" /> While there is no strict limit on the number of references, the quantity often reflects the depth of the researcher's engagement with the scientific record. Typically, a master's thesis includes

<footnote n="182">¹⁸² It is a common mistake to put references before appendices. Appendices might include citations, thus, they come before references.</footnote>
around 50 references, while a Ph.D. thesis may
include about 150 or more references.

Academic article

In research, the term “article” or “paper”refers
specifically to peer-reviewed written works published
in academic journals or conference proceedings. Web
articles and opinion pieces in daily newspapers are
not considered academic articles, even if the author
is a well-known researcher or the topic is
research related.

Authors typically pay a fee to participate in
conferences or to cover publication costs once their
article is accepted by a journal. Therefore, publishing
an academic article involves costs, and there is a
significant business supports this process.<fnref n="183" />

Academic articles come in various types, which can
be classified based on their goal as follows:

<footnote n="183">¹⁸³ The market's total value was estimated at 19 billion dollars in 2020 and has been growing since. For more details, see [WEB21].</footnote>
* **Abstract:** a 1-2 page article designed to present a new idea is typically referred to as a "brief communication" or "short communication". This type of article usually includes a summary of the idea, the research method to be used, and the anticipated results. It is concise, generally featuring 2-4 references at most. Its primary purpose is to serve as a communication tool during research meetings. The peer-review requirements for this type of article are usually less rigorous compared to other types of research articles.

* **Conference proceedings:** proceedings are a collection of materials presented at a scientific conference, including papers, abstracts, and other content. They serve as a record of the research and discussions that occurred during the event and are usually published as a standalone document, with a
unique ISBN. While peer review process is
mandatory for all conferences, the standards
may be less stringent compared to journal
articles. A typical proceedings article is
around 6-8 pages long and includes
approximately 20 references.

* **Journal article** It is considered the most reliable source of scientific knowledge due to its rigorous peer-review process, which is stricter compared to other publications. Scientific Journals are released in periodic issues, which are later compiled into volumes.<fnref n="184" /> A journal article presents a summary of a complete research study, including a brief overview of the current knowledge, a detailed description of the methods used, and an overview of the results,

<footnote n="184">¹⁸⁴ Scientific journals are often published at the beginning or end of each quarter, resulting in four issues per year. This is known as a quarterly journal. However, triannual journals, released three times a year, and monthly journals are also frequently chosen formats.</footnote>
along with analysis and conclusions. On average, a journal article is about 20 pages long and includes around 30-70 references.

* **Survey:** they are journal articles that do not present complete research but instead focus on providing a comprehensive overview of a specific research topic. A survey summarises the current knowledge, highlights key findings and trends, discusses the research methods used, and identifies gaps that still need to be addressed. Due to their broad scope, survey articles usually build on a large number of sources. A typical survey article is usually at least 20 pages long and cites around 100 references.

* **Literature review:** It is a standalone article, or section within a research work, that provides a critical and comprehensive synthesis of existing research on a specific topic. It aims to identify, evaluate, and compare relevant
studies to establish the current state-of-of-
art, highlight significant findings, and
elucidate theoretical or methodological gaps.
Literature reviews serve as a foundation for
further research by contextualising the topic
within the broader academic discourse and
pinpointing areas requiring further
investigation. Unlike survey articles, which
focus on summarising trends and technical
advancements, literature reviews emphasise
the interplay of ideas, contrasting methods,
and the relative strengths and weaknesses of
existing studies.

Chapter 5 provided a detailed discussion of the
structure of a typical academic article. Although
academic articles can vary greatly in length, they
generally, except for abstract articles, adhere to this
structure. In summary, a typical academic article
includes the title, author information, abstract,
keywords, main body, and references. The main body
is usually divided into the introduction, literature review on the addressed problem, methods followed, results obtained, analysis, discussion, and conclusion.

Abstract articles, however, are too brief to follow this structure. Their purpose is to present initial ideas for further discussion, regarding their validity, and to explain potential methods for testing the ideas. At this early stage of research, the research question is often not fully developed, so no tests have been conducted. Therefore, there are no results to discuss.

However, an abstract article might include anticipated results or some preliminary measurements to illustrate the proposed method, using a real-world example. In this case, the focus is on the method itself, how the measurements were taken and the rationale for choosing them, rather than on the actual values obtained.
## Research report

A research report is a professionally written document that presents the findings of research conducted as part of a larger project or campaign, which can be either public or private. While these reports are considered scientific and prepared by researchers, they are typically intended for an audience outside the research field, such as technicians and stakeholders. The goal is to communicate findings in clear language, emphasising the practical applications of the results.

Research reports can be classified based on their target audience as follows:

*   **Academic report:** These are usually written as part of a funded thesis to track progress. When an organisation funds a research program, including Ph.D. theses, one requirement is to provide periodic reports that update on the progress. These reports need to be comprehensible to both academic
reviewers and non-research professionals to
assess advancement from both perspectives.

*   **Professional report:** Commonly used in private businesses, government agencies, or industry. These reports provide a scientific foundation for specific questions that need answers. The primary purpose of professional research reports is to give decision-makers detailed and accurate information that is understandable and applicable.

*   **Technical report:** These reports are designed for engineers or technicians who are using or testing research products. Technical research reports focus on simplifying abstract concepts and offering practical details to assist technicians in modifying or implementing research prototypes.

Although research reports are typically reviewed by
researchers before publication, the peer-review
process may lack independence. This is because the
reviewers often work within the same institution as the author, which can lead to potential conflicts of interest. As a result, the objectivity and independence of research reports can be a significant concern.

A typical research report has the following key elements:

1. Title page

2. Abstract

3. Table of contents

4. Lists of figures and tables

5. List of abbreviations

6. Content

7. Appendices

8. References

The content element further includes the following section: Introduction, literature review, method, results, discussion and conclusion.

Figure 8-3 shows the title page in a research report, it includes the following elements: logos if the institutions or companies involved, title of the report, report ID, the name of the author(s) and his department, the name of the destination department or agency and the date of publication.
The report ID is an internal identifier assigned
according to the administrative numbering system
established by the author's institution. The ID helps
to easily locate the report within the institution's
internal archive system.

<figure><img src="image_65.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_66.png" /></figure>

# Report Title

## Report ID

By

Names of the Author(s)

Name of the Authors' department

Prepared for

Name of the Destination Audience

Date

<caption>Figure 8-3. Typical research report title page</caption>
The structure of a research report is similar to that of a thesis, but with a few key differences:

* **No Acknowledgment Page:** Unlike theses, which are associated with earning an academic degree, research reports are more professional in nature and typically do not include an acknowledgment section.

* **Fewer References:** A Research report contain around 10-40 references typically. A number that is significantly fewer of average number of references in theses. This is because reports focus more on practical aspects and are intended for an audience that is not primarily composed of researchers.

* **Shorter Length:** Research reports are generally shorter in length than Ph.D. theses. A typical research report includes around (50-100) pages, while a typical thesis includes three times the average of the report, with a length of 200 pages in average.
## Popular science Book

Books are among the most recognised types of publications, but not all books are suitable for research purposes. In the context of research, the focus is on popular science books. Although these books are written for a general audience, they are authored by experts, scientists, and researchers who aim to simplify complex ideas and make them accessible to those outside the academic field.

Before diving to details, it is essential to distinguish between self-published and traditionally published books. In self-publishing, the author is responsible for every aspect of production, marketing, and distribution, maintaining complete creative control over the content, design, pricing, and rights. In contrast, traditionally published books involve a publisher who may influence content, design, and marketing strategies and often holds rights to certain formats or translations.
Another significant factor to consider is the quality of the work. Traditional publishers employ editors, illustrators, and designers to ensure that the book meets market standards. In contrast, the quality of self-published books can vary widely, depending largely on the author's resources and expertise.

The peer-review process for books is not as rigorous as it is for academic articles. Authors or publishers may ask several reviewers to provide feedback before publication, but there is no guarantee that their suggestions will be implemented. This lack of strict review is why popular science books are generally not considered reliable sources for citation in academic research. Despite this, they remain valuable resources for gaining general knowledge on specific topics.

Unlike research theses and reports, popular science books do not follow a standardised structure. Instead, what defines them as a unique category is their commitment to the scientific method. Authors
have the freedom to present their subjects in various ways: some may build the topic piece by piece, others might start with a broad overview and then break it down, while others might present the material chronologically.

A typical popular science book has the following key elements:

1. Hard cover

2. Inner cover

3. License page

4. Table of contents

5. Lists of figures and tables

6. List of abbreviations

7. Preface

8. Content

9. Appendices

10. Index

11. References

The hardcover is designed to protect the book from excessive wear and tear, often featuring a visually appealing design. Both the hardcover and the inner cover typically display the book's title, the author(s) name(s) and professional titles, the publisher's name, if traditionally published, the edition, if not the first, and the year of publication. The license page provides
bibliographical details, including the book's and author(s) IDs, the legal status of the work, the illustrator's name, the cover designer's name, and the publisher's contact information, such as email and postal address.<fnref n="185" />

The preface of a book acts as an introduction, similar to those found in theses and reports. However, the author has greater freedom to discuss the motivation behind writing the book, the challenges encountered, any changes made from previous editions, if it is not the first, the intended audience, and tips on how to make the most of the book. The preface typically concludes with an acknowledgment section, where the author expresses gratitude to funders, reviewers, editors, and others who contributed to the book.

Authors typically divide the content into chapters, with each chapter focusing on a specific aspect of the topic. There are no strict limits on the length or

<footnote n="185">¹⁸⁵ Refer to the license page at the beginning of this book for a practical example of what it looks like.</footnote>
number of chapters, but it is important to maintain a balanced chapter length, usually around 20 to 30 pages. If a book has more than ten chapters, the author might organise them into parts, with each part addressing a specific theme of the studied subject.

If the book becomes too lengthy to be contained in a single volume, it can be split into multiple volumes. However, this is not common, as most popular science books are designed to be compact, portable and user-friendly for marketing purposes. Unlike encyclopaedias, which are often large and span multiple volumes.

The appendices in a popular science book are similar to those found in research theses. The book also features an index, a section not typically included in other scientific publications. The index lists keywords alongside the page numbers where they are mentioned, helping readers locate specific topics or themes without needing to read the entire chapter or book. Keywords can include concepts, important
terms, names of people, places, and more. For each
term, the page numbers are listed in ascending order,
with each page where the keyword appears noted
once in the index, regardless of how many times the
term is mentioned on that page.<fnref n="186" />

Citing references is a fundamental aspect of the
scientific method, and books are no exception. As in
other research publications, the references are listed
at the end. There is no specific rule governing the
number of references required, but generally, a
higher number of citations suggests greater
reliability.<fnref n="187" /> For instance, a 400-page book might
typically cite around 100 references, though this
estimate can vary significantly depending on the
content and depth of the work.

<footnote n="186">¹⁸⁶ Refer to the index at the end of this book for a practical example of what an index looks like.</footnote>

<footnote n="187">¹⁸⁷ If a book lacks a reference section or has a very brief one, it cannot be considered scientific. For instance, educational books used in primary schools often simplify scientific topics for teaching purposes. These books are strictly educational and do not qualify as scientific works.</footnote>
Table 8-3 shows key aspects of research publications namely: subtypes, target audience, goals, estimated average of both number of pages,<fnref n="188" /> and the number of references.

<footnote n="188">¹⁸⁸ The numbers provided are estimates of the expected average. However, there are situations where this guideline may not apply, resulting in the actual number of pages being either lower or higher than the values shown in the table.</footnote>
<table><caption>Table 8-3. Comparison of different types of scientific publications</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Types</th><th>Audience</th><th>Goal</th><th>#. pages</th><th>#. ref</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">Thesis</td><td>Mast.</td><td>-</td><td><ul><li>Obtain Master's degrees</li><li>Learn how to conduct a research</li></ul></td><td>75-100</td><td>~ 50</td></tr><tr><td>Ph.D.</td><td>Peer researchers</td><td><ul><li>Obtain Ph.D.</li><li>Test new ideas or hypotheses</li></ul></td><td>150-250</td><td>~ 150</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Academic article</td><td>Abs.</td><td rowspan="5">Peer researchers</td><td>Provide brief descriptions of original research</td><td>1-2</td><td>~ 4</td></tr><tr><td>Conf.</td><td>Share Initial findings</td><td>6-8</td><td>~ 20</td></tr><tr><td>Jour.</td><td>Share final results</td><td>10-20</td><td>~ 30-70</td></tr><tr><td>Surv.</td><td>Overview of a subject (technical details, history of discoveries etc. ...)</td><td>+20</td><td>+100</td></tr><tr><td>Lit. rev.</td><td>all relevant works on the subject</td><td>+20</td><td>+100</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><tr><td rowspan="3">Report</td><td>Acad.</td><td>Peer researchers, or stakeholders</td><td>provide a way to follow the advancement in a research project</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Prof.</td><td>Decision-makers</td><td>Provide Scientific basis</td><td>50 - 150</td><td>~10 - 40</td></tr><tr><td>Tech.</td><td>Technical engineers</td><td><ul><li>Explain abstract concept</li><li>Provide technical details on a research prototype</li></ul></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Book</td><td>Public audience</td><td>Popularise science</td><td>300 - 500</td><td>+100</td></tr></table>

<figure><img src="image_67.png" /></figure>
# Index

Dates - Languages- Figures- Places - Organizations - Others

## Dates

10th Century: 42, 43.

12th Century: 8.

14th Century: 31.

15th Century: 102.

16th Century: 53, 62, 63, 154.

17th Century: 64, 103.

18th Century: 64.

19th Century: 64, 107, 118, 182, 308.

3500 BCE: 39, 40.

950 BCE: 308.

570 BCE: 80.

495 BCE: 80.

384 BCE: 45.

375 BCE: 48.

360 BCE: 122.

356 BCE: 121.

348 BCE: 48.

333 BCE: 123.

327 BCE: 122, 123.

323 BCE: 121.

322 BCE: 45.

300 BCE: 118.

120 BCE: 122.

100 BCE: 122.

10 BCE: 134.

56: 308.

570: 115.

632: 115.

965: 42.

1040: 42.

1500: 39, 40.

1532: 134.

1560: 252.

1561: 44.
1582: 355.

1593: 252.

1596: 53.

1617: 45.

1626: 44.

1637: 54.

1642: 89.

1650: 53.

1675: 54.

1707: 251.

1727: 89.

1736: 251.

1769: 12.

1783: 251.

1798: 12.

1804: 12.

1807: 308.

1814: 12.

1821: 12.

1834: 178.

1863: 308.

1869: 178.

1879: 88.

1880: 154, 308.

1905: 88.

1907: 178.

1910: 148.

1912: 303.

1915: 154.

1918: 207.

1920: 254.

1921: 88.

1922: 310.

1928: 253.

1930: 154, 254.

1937: 121.

1942: 148.

1945: 9, 10.

1946: 325.

1950: 43, 254.

1953: 304.

1955: 88, 292.

1956: 334.

1960: 154.
1965: 207, 310.

1970: 274.

1976: 278.

1978: 236.

1981: 43.

1986: 330.

1987: 10.

1988: 207.

1989: 8.

1994: 254, 292.

1995: 310.

1998: 276, 334.

2000: 203, 217, 254, 277, 321, 324, 333, 334.

2001: 253.

2002: 334.

2003: 148.

2005: 207.

2006: 274.

2008: 203.

2009: 313.

2010: 216, 335.

2011: 276.

2012: 188.

2013: 7, 142.

2015: 253.

2016: 254, 321, 325.

2017: 218, 325.

2018: 48, 325, 330.

2020: 236, 280, 371.

2021: 218, 302, 325.

2022: 238.

2023: 6.

2024: 317.

## Languages

Ancient Greek: 118.

Arabic: 42, 44, 115, 238, 272, 347, 355.

Chinese: 272.

Dutch: 45.

English: 8, 32, 88, 104, 218, 219, 222, 226, 227, 228, 229.

French: 53, 54, 55, 107, 183.

German: 88, 154.
Greek: 45, 48, 61, 102, 104, 105, 111, 113, 114, 118, 121, 122, 123, 151, 152, 251.

Hebrew: 347.

Latin: 61, 102, 107, 134, 251, 272, 319, 354, 365.

Old English: 8, 62.

Old French: 62.

Proto-Indo-European: 8, 31, 63.

Russian: 178, 252.

## Figures

Al-Hasan: 42, 43, 44, 46, 56.

Adolf Hitler: 153.

Albert Einstein: 88, 147, 180.

Alexander the Great: 121, 122, 123.

Alfred Wegener: 154, 155.

Amy Cuddy: 176, 177.

Andrew Wakefield: 334, 335.

Andy Yap: 176.

Aristotle: 45, 46, 103.

Arthur Smith Woodward: 303.

Ashutosh Jogalekar: 142.

Balakros: 123.

Bilbo Baggins: 121, 122.

Bertrand Russell: 46.

Cabells' Predatory: 189.

Callisthenes of Olynthus: 122.

Charles Dawson: 303.

Clair Cameron Patterson: 310.

Dana R. Carney: 176.

Dimitri Mendeleev: 178, 179, 180.

Donald John Trump: 325.

Edward Wilson: 32.

Euclid: 118.

Francis Bacon: 44, 45, 46, 47, 50, 52.

Frodo Baggins: 13.

Helena of Adiabene: 308.

Heracles: 123.

Ibn Al-Haytham: 42, 43.
Isaac Newton: 89.

Jan Reichelt: 203.

Jan Hendrik Schön: 333, 334.

J.R.R. Tolkien: 13, 121.

Jeffrey Beall: 188.

Joe Biden: 70.

John Harsanyi: 254.

John Nash: 253.

Leonel Messi: 10.

Leonhard Euler: 251.

Louis Félicien de Saulcy: 308.

Matthäus Merian the Elder: 252.

Mickey Mouse: 317.

Mike Schroepfer: 325.

Muhammad ibn Abdullah: 115.

Napoleon Bonaparte: 12, 13.

Niccolò Machiavelli: 134.

Paul Foeckler: 203.

Pope Gregory XIII: 355.

Plato: 48, 49, 52.

Ptolemy: 44.

Publius Ovidius Naso (Ovid): 134.

Pythagoras: 80.

Reinhard Selten: 254.

René Descartes: 53, 54, 55, 183.

Richard Feynman: 207.

Robert K. Merton: 148.

Tim Berners-Lee: 292.

Victor Henning: 203.

Zeus Aëtophoros: 123.

## Organisations

Cambridge Analytica: 324.

Classical Numismatic Group: 123.

Department of Commerce: 314.

Facebook: 324, 325.

EU: 325, 329, 330.

General Medical Council: 335.
House of Commons Science
and Technology
Committee: 314.

Independent Climate
Change Review: 314.

International Science
Assessment Panel: 314.

IRENA: 321.

ISO: 277.

ISSN International Centre:
278.

National Science
Foundation: 151, 314.

Pennsylvania State
University first panel: 314.

Princeton University: 254,
339.

Stanford University: 338.

The International DOI
Foundation: 277.

United States
Environmental Protection
Agency: 314.

University of East Anglia:
313.

University of Newcastle:
109.

Yale (university): 339.

## Places

Achaemenid Persia: 121.

Ancient Greece: 3, 48.

Arabian Peninsula: 153.

Asia: 121.

Athens: 48.

Basel: 251.

Basra: 42.

Berlin: 153.

Braunschweig: 154.

Cairo: 42.

Camden, Maine: 177.

Canada: 12.

Egypt: 12, 13, 42, 108, 236.

England: 44.

Europe: 308.

France: 54, 236.

Holy Land: 30.

House of the Faun: 122.

Iraq: 42.
Jerusalem: 308.

Kaliningrad: 252.

Königsberg: 252.

Łazienki Palace: 45.

Leiden: 54.

Levant: 153.

Louvre Museum: 54, 308.

Mordor: 13.

Mount Doom: 13.

Naples: 122.

National Archaeological
Museum: 122.

North Pole: 320.

Poland: 45.

Pompeii: 122.

Pregel River: 252.

Prussia: 252.

Roman Empire: 354.

Russia: 252.

Saint Petersburg: 251.

United Kingdom: 304, 325.

United States: 12, 308, 325,
330.

Others

A Beautiful Mind: 253.

Abortion: 297.

Abstract: 197, 201, 264,
367, 368, 372, 375, 376,
379.

Abstract Article: 376.

Abundance: 26, 27, 28, 29.

Academic Article: 56, 195,
195, 196, 269, 273, 275,
276, 285, 294, 359, 363,
371, 375, 383, 389.

Academic Report: 377.

Academy Award for Best
Picture: 253.

Accuracy: 16, 35, 66, 68, 77,
110, 116, 160, 169.

Acknowledgement: 198,
306, 367, 368, 381, 385.

Acronym: 356, 369.

Age of faith: 3, 43.

AI: 299, 300, 330.

Algebra: 261, 262.

Algorithm: 149.
Alternative Theory: 153, 155, 156.

Analysis: 55, 77, 78, 79, 81, 83, 99, 109, 112, 116, 139, 141, 159, 167, 169, 169, 170, 173, 176, 199, 254, 256, 258, 291, 305, 307, 311, 325, 343, 348, 370, 374, 376.

Animal Testing: 297.

Anonymity: 325.

Anonymisation: 327.

Anthropology: 111, 112, 150.

Antiquity: 3, 14.

APA: 270.

Appendix: 351, 367, 370, 379, 384, 386.

Applied Ethics: 296, 297, 298, 300.

Applied mathematics: 149.

Applied Physics Letters: 33.

Applied Science: 92, 149, 150.

Arabic numerals: 354.

Archaeological Record: 119, 303.

Archaeology: 150.

Assumption: 93, 94, 117, 119, 145, 153.

Astrology: 146, 156, 178, 226.

Astronomy: 115, 146.

Atheism: 50.

Atomic Bomb: 207.

Authenticity: 116.

Authority Control: 197, 271, 273.

Autonomy: 299.

Autism: 334, 335.

Availability: 352.

Bar Chart: 361.

Battle of Issus: 122.

Bias: 18, 20, 117, 131, 166, 184, 185, 219, 279, 281, 289, 304, 306, 307, 309, 311, 367.

BibDesk: 203.

Bible: 104, 308.

Bibliography: 264, 294.
Binomial Theorem: 89.

Biodiversity Loss: 320.

Bioethics: 297, 298.

Biology: 46, 108, 115, 150.

Book: 172, 204, 206, 267, 269, 273, 276, 285, 288, 294, 356, 359, 363, 367, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 390.

Book of Exodus: 104.

Brexit campaign: 325.

Bulleted List: 361.

Calculus: 72, 261, 262.

Cambridge Dictionary: 6, 7, 8, 30, 60, 99, 102, 106.

Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy: 109.

Cartography: 114.

Causal relationship: 223, 228, 230.

Central Bank of Iraq: 43.

Certitude: 55.

Characters-preserving Plagiarism: 340, 341.

Citation: 267, 268, 269, 270, 271, 286, 290, 291, 292, 317, 318, 342, 344, 346, 366, 383, 387.

Citation Style: 269, 270, 293.

Chemistry: 16, 148, 150, 178.

Christianity: 4, 104.

Classical Mechanics: 89, 90.

Classification: 113, 115, 123, 168, 263, 279, 281, 308.

Climate Change: 238, 284, 314, 319.

Climatic Research Unit: 313.

Collective Knowledge: 60, 71.

Colloquialisms: 352.

Colonialism: 219.

Colour: 356, 357, 359, 360.

Comparative Study: 218, 219.

Comedy: 132.
Commentaries of the
Petropolitan Imperial
Academy of Sciences: 251.

Communication: 160, 174.

Communism: 148.

Complex Fact: 58, 71, 77,
78, 92, 97, 98, 99, 129, 224.

Complex Number: 251.

Complexity: 26, 27, 28, 29,
69, 184.

Computer Science: 149,
150.

Conclusion: 21, 22, 23, 24,
74, 170, 199, 201, 202, 209,
243, 250, 266, 282, 291,
305, 310, 335, 348, 368,
370, 374, 376, 379.

Conference Article: 195,
286, 287.

Confidentiality: 329.

Conflict of Interest: 120,
125, 198, 283, 284, 286,
289, 310, 316, 330, 379.

Consensus: 60, 61, 64, 65,
66, 67, 149, 152, 153, 221.

Consistency: 84, 116, 129,
345, 348, 362.

Conspiracy Theory: 152,
153, 302.

Constitutive Definition: 73,
74, 75, 76, 77, 99.

Contemporary Method:
114, 115.

Continuity: 241.

Contrast: 357, 358.

Copyright: 300, 316, 318,
330, 353.

Comma: 354.

COVID-19: 14, 153, 280,
302.

Creationism: 152.

Creative Commons: 288,
317.

Creativity: 130, 131.

Credibility: 26, 27, 28, 29,
69, 79, 90, 91, 116, 130,
195, 283, 285, 304, 334.

Critical Thinking: 46, 311.

CUDOS: 148.

Culture: 111, 150, 218, 307.

Cynicism: 303.

Dark Ages: 4.
Dark Matter: 85, 161.

Data minimisation: 327.

Data Protection: 300, 323.

Dataset: 267.

Deduction: 125.

Deductive: 92, 93.

Deductive Method: 98,
111, 126.

Deductive Reasoning: 23,
24, 93, 125.

Define by Context: 213,
214.

Define Using Description:
214, 220, 221, 222, 223,
225.

Define Using Hypothesis:
215, 220.

Define Using Questions:
214, 220, 221, 222, 223,
225.

Define by Syntax: 213, 220,
221.

Degree of: 26, 27, 28, 29.

Descriptive Method: 98,
111, 112, 114, 115, 124,
136, 143, 144, 223.

Diamond Model: 211, 212.

Dictionary: 5, 6, 7, 30, 99,
100, 281.

Digital Research: 322.

Digital Privacy: 323.

Dignity: 295, 299.

digression: 350.

Direct proportional
relationship: 224.

Discourse on the Method:
53, 54.

Discrimination: 308.

Dishonesty: 302, 303.

Disinterestedness: 148.

Disney: 317.

Documentary Method:
114, 115.

Dogma: 61.

DOI: 273, 276, 277, 288,
294.

Double-blind: 184.

Doubt: 44, 54, 55, 183.

Earth: 37, 38, 50, 61, 66, 84,
108, 144, 146, 152, 295,
318.
Edition: 6, 7, 8, 267, 269, 273, 276, 289, 294, 384, 385.

Economics: 144, 145, 150, 218, 239, 253, 254.

Egyptology: 108.

Electronics: 333.

Elliptic Geometry: 24.

Elsevier: 203.

Email Controversy: 313.

Emotion: 58, 131, 133, 135, 136, 301, 352.

Empirical: 95, 129, 135, 144, 147, 149, 150, 152, 156, 301, 308.

Encyclopaedia: 218, 267, 281, 386.

Engineering: 148, 150, 321.

Enlightenment: 4.

Enumerated List: 361, 362.

Environment: 295, 318, 319, 320, 322, 329.

Environmental Ethics: 297, 298.

Environmental Responsibility: 300.

Epistemology: 296, 298.

Equal Opportunity: 302.

Ethical Code: 299.

Ethics: 18, 295, 296, 298, 299, 300, 307, 331.

Ethics Committee: 328.

Etymology: 5, 8, 62, 99, 100, 102, 107.

Euclidean Geometry: 24, 118, 181.

Euler's number: 251.

Evidence: 61, 94, 95, 135, 152, 153, 155, 156, 170, 178, 183, 189, 221, 301, 305, 307, 308, 314, 363.

Evolution: 303, 304.

Experiment: 16, 18, 20, 127, 139, 145, 148, 158, 184, 234, 305, 311, 326, 332, 333.

Experimentation: 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 46, 68, 299.
Experience: 6, 7, 8, 10, 17,
34, 74, 76, 132, 139, 144,
149, 165, 238, 279, 366.

Expertise: 143.

Extraterrestrial Life: 161.

Fabrication: 295, 331, 332,
333, 336, 337, 345.

Facebook-Cambridge

Analytica data scandal:
324.

Facial Recognition: 300.

Fact: 7, 8, 36, 37, 38, 57, 58,
59, 61, 62, 64, 65, 66, 67,
69, 70, 71, 75, 79, 92, 94,
125, 131, 133, 134, 170,
283, 284, 310, 311.

Fallacy: 26, 66.

Falsehood: 94.

Falsifiability: 152.

Falsification: 295, 331, 332,
333, 334, 336, 337, 345.

Fatimid Caliphate: 42.

Feminine System: 298.

Figure: 199, 358, 359, 360,
367, 368, 379, 384.

Folklore: 111.

Font: 352, 360.

Footnote: 350, 351.

Formal Language 149.

Formal Science: 149, 150.

Foundational Science: 149,
150.

French Revolution: 12.

Fringe Theory: 152, 153,
155, 156.

Game Theory: 253.

Gravity: 84, 89.

Gender Gap: 218, 219, 222,
226, 228.

Geography: 144, 261, 262,

Geology: 108, 144, 154,
155.

Geometry: 117, 118, 251.

Gregorian Calendar: 355.

GDPR: 330.

Google Scholar: 200, 210,
255, 259.

Graphics: 352, 360.

Graph Theory: 253.
Hadith Studies: 115, 116, 117.

Heatmap: 361.

Heterogenous Data: 113.

HIPAA: 329.

Histogram: 361.

Historical Method: 13, 119, 121, 122.

Historicity: 119.

History: 4, 12, 41, 43, 67, 114, 116, 119, 144, 199, 216, 251.

Homogenous Data: 114, 204.

Honesty: 300, 301, 302, 304, 305.

Human Cloning: 297.

Humanity: 299.

Humanities: 92, 136.

Hydroxychloroquine: 280.

Hyperbolic Geometry: 24.

Hypothesis: 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 91, 93, 99, 147, 157, 158, 159, 160, 164, 165, 166,

171, 179, 184, 215, 220, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 234, 246, 282, 291, 304, 306, 332, 364, 389.

Idea-preserving Plagiarism: 341.

Ideology: 61.

Idols of the Cave: 47, 48, 49.

Idols of the Market: 47, 50, 51, 103, 124.

Idols of the Mind: 47.

Idols of the Theatre: 47, 52.

Idols of the Tribe: 47.

Independency: 283.

Indoctrination: 11, 12, 13, 14, 57.

Induction: 126.

Inductive: 93.

Inductive Method: 98, 111, 114, 126, 128, 129, 137, 144, 148, 170, 223.

Inductive Reasoning: 23, 93.
Information Technology: 300.

Innovation: 321.

Integrated State-of-the-art: 249.

Integrity: 302, 310, 316, 328, 336, 338.

Internet: 217, 218, 326, 346, 363.

Internet Archive: 293.

Interview: 137, 139.

Invalid: 38, 62, 66, 79, 94, 117, 156, 166, 168, 171, 186, 221, 228, 230, 244, 284, 292.

Inverse proportional relationship: 224.

IRB: 328, 330.

Islam: 4, 42, 115, 116, 153, 238, 355.

Islamic calendar: 355.

ISBN: 205, 206, 207, 273, 274, 275, 288, 289, 294, 373.

ISNI: 197.

ISO 26324: 277.

ISSN: 273, 278, 288, 294.

Issue: 268, 287, 294, 373.

Journal Article: 172, 174, 195, 199, 204, 248, 249, 267, 268, 280, 286, 287, 373, 374.

Journal of the Russian Chemical Society: 179.

Judaism: 104.

Julian calendar: 355.

Keyword: 197, 200, 201, 202, 211, 256, 259, 260, 280, 376, 386, 387.

Know-How Knowledge: 10.

Know-that knowledge: 9.

Knowledge: 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 19, 20, 21, 26, 27, 30, 31, 33, 35, 36, 39, 42, 44, 51, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 65, 67, 68, 70, 71, 72, 73, 97, 100, 101, 108, 109, 111, 114, 119, 124, 126, 127, 130, 142, 144, 149, 158, 160, 162, 163, 165, 175, 181, 193, 211, 230, 233, 238, 241, 245, 246, 250, 251, 259, 278, 286, 291, 296, 303,
304, 319, 344, 345, 363,
367, 373, 374, 383.

Lancet: 334, 335.

Lancet MMR autism fraud:
334.

Law: 58, 64, 67, 78, 79, 80,
86, 90, 92, 125, 128, 129,
235, 236, 242, 244, 316,
318, 323, 329, 330, 331.

Legal Responsibility: 300.

Level of Details: 26, 27, 28,
29.

Licence: 384, 385.

Line Chart: 361.

List: 361, 362.

List of Abbreviation: 369,
379, 384.

Linguistics: 136.

Literary Approach: 98, 130,
131, 132, 134, 135, 350.

Literature: 130, 132.

Literature Review: 199,
348, 370, 374, 376, 379.

Logic: 25, 26, 65, 66, 77, 78,
91, 107, 127, 131, 135, 149,

150, 260, 261, 262, 296,
298.

Mailing List: 267.

Manhattan Project: 207.

Map: 267, 275.

Masculine System: 298.

Master's degree: 364, 366,
389.

Master's thesis: 366, 370.

Mathematics: 118, 127,
129, 149, 253, 261, 262.

Medical Ethics: 297, 219.

Medicine: 150, 334.

Mendeley: 203.

Mental Induction: 127,
128.

Merriam-Webster
Dictionary: 7, 8, 31, 60, 99,
102, 106.

Mertonian norms: 148.

Metaethics: 296, 297, 298.

Metaphysics: 103, 296,
298.

Method: 12, 13, 18, 19, 33,
35, 41, 55, 59, 61, 68, 88,
98, 99, 101, 102, 106, 107,
108, 115, 116, 118, 125,
130, 131, 135, 141, 144,
145, 149, 154, 156, 158,
160, 167, 168, 176, 180,
182, 184, 194, 220, 232,
247, 282, 295, 302, 305,
315, 336, 343, 344, 348,
368, 373, 375, 376, 379.

Methodology: 97, 101, 105,
107, 108, 109, 110.

Middle Ages: 3, 14, 216.

Misconduct: 303, 314, 331,
336.

Misinformation: 13, 302.

MLA: 270.

Multilevel list: 362.

Musical Recording: 267,
268.

Nationalism: 50.

National Security: 235.

Natural Logarithm: 251.

Natural Language 149.

Natural Science: 149, 150.

Neutrality: 19, 21, 126.

Nature (Journal): 333, 334.

Noble Prize: 88, 207, 254.

Non-maleficence: 319.

Normative Ethics: 296, 298.

Novum Organum: 45.

Nuremberg Code: 299.

Objective: 62, 68, 112, 125,
133, 167, 169, 170, 239,
295.

Objectivity: 131, 135, 175,
198, 219, 300, 305, 306,
310, 312, 346, 379.

Observation: 11, 14, 15, 16,
17, 19, 20, 21, 46, 59, 68,
78, 79, 81, 93, 99, 124, 126,
138, 139, 144, 146, 148,
149, 183, 184, 207, 208,
311.

Oceanography: 155.

OCLC: 273, 275, 276, 285,
294.

Open Access: 315.

Open-Access Journal: 315.

Operational Definition: 73,
75, 76, 99.

Originality: 341.

Organic Electronics: 334.
Oxford Dictionary of
Science: 85.

Oxford English Dictionary:
8, 276.

Oxford Learner's
Dictionaries: 6, 7, 8, 30, 59,
60, 99, 101, 105.

Plagiarism: 295, 317, 332,
338, 339, 340, 341, 342,
345.

Plagiarism Detectors: 341,
342.

Papers (application): 203.

Paraphrasing: 341, 342.

Pattern: 14, 16, 169, 178,
193, 228, 256, 357, 358,
359, 360.

Peer-review: 172, 176, 185,
186, 187, 188, 195, 280,
282, 285, 286, 289, 294,
312, 314, 334, 345, 363,
371, 372, 373, 378, 383.

Perception: 19, 21, 36, 48,
57, 73, 74, 76, 99.

Period (punctuation): 354.

Periodic Table: 178, 179.

Personal Knowledge: 10.

Piltdown Man hoax: 303,
304.

pharmaceutical industry:
309.

Philosophy: 3, 48, 67, 110,
127, 296, 298, 300.

Phrenology: 152.

Physics: 85, 90, 103, 104,
128, 148, 150, 207, 261,
262.

Pie Chart: 361.

Plato's Cave: 48, 49.

Plausibility: 151.

Politics: 239.

Postulate: 107, 117, 118,
119.

Power Posing: 176, 177.

Precipitancy: 183.

Predatory Journal: 188,
189.

Predictability: 146, 175,
177.

Prejudice: 183.

Primary Source: 279, 281,
290, 291, 366, 367.
Privacy: 300, 323, 324, 325.

Probability: 91.

Problem: 156, 157, 158, 159, 168, 173, 174, 212, 230, 231, 232, 233, 282.

Proceedings: 288, 372.

Professional Ethics: 297, 298.

Professional Master's Programs: 365.

Professional Reports: 378.

Promotive Approach: 98, 130, 131, 133, 135.

Propaganda: 61, 62.

Pseudohistory: 153, 156.

Pseudoscience: 146, 151, 152, 155, 156, 284, 308.

Psychology: 143.

Publication: 159, 160, 171, 172, 174, 186, 187, 209, 233, 249, 263, 265, 266, 267, 268, 278, 282, 285, 289, 290, 294, 316, 335, 344, 346, 363, 364, 373, 378, 379, 382, 384, 386, 388.

Publishing: 159, 171, 172, 184, 343, 344, 371.

Pure Mathematics: 149.

Pythagorean theorem: 80, 84.

Qualitative Approach: 136, 137, 138, 139, 169.

Quantifiability: 143.

Quantitative Approach: 136, 137, 138, 139, 169.

Quantum Mechanics: 89, 90, 207.

Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society: 303.

Quotation: 204, 205, 206, 207, 267, 350.

Race Science: 308.

Racism: 308.

RADAR Diagram: 28, 29, 69.

Readability: 357.

Reality: 36, 37, 48, 49, 59, 60, 62, 64, 165, 225.

Reason: 12, 299.

Reasoning: 11, 21, 22, 23, 25, 46, 61, 64, 65, 66, 77,
78, 91, 93, 108, 134, 135, 149, 239.

Redundancy: 344.

References: 199, 203, 205, 206, 207, 211, 241, 254, 266, 351, 364, 367, 370, 372, 373, 374, 376, 379, 381, 384, 387, 388.

Reference Management: 193, 194, 202, 203, 204, 207, 210.

Reference Management software: 204, 205, 211, 256.

Reliability: 116, 145, 175, 185, 188, 243, 280, 282, 283.

Reliable: 21, 79, 167, 168, 175, 187, 272, 284, 292, 311, 366, 373, 383.

Religion: 239.

Religious Studies: 114, 117, 144.

Renaissance: 14, 39, 40, 44.

Renewable energy: 320.

Repeatable: 18, 55, 56, 129.

Repeatability: 17, 19, 20, 21, 175.

Replicability: 145, 146.

Report: 164, 172, 195, 196, 249, 267, 289, 290, 294, 363, 364, 377, 379, 380, 383, 385, 390.

Reports Kscien's List: 189.

Reproducibility: 144, 145, 146, 175, 177, 313, 344, 345.

Research: 18, 97, 108, 130, 131, 135, 155, 157, 162, 163, 166, 167, 172, 173, 174, 180, 193, 194, 198, 201, 202, 208, 211, 212, 214, 221, 224, 230, 234, 235, 238, 241, 244, 245, 250, 255, 260, 262, 263, 268, 279, 281, 283, 284, 288, 291, 296, 300, 301, 303, 304, 306, 308, 309, 315, 319, 321, 322, 323, 325, 329, 331, 332, 327, 363, 365, 366, 368, 371, 372, 376, 377, 378, 382, 388, 390.

Research Log: 315.
Research Master's Program: 356, 357.

Research Method: 58, 98, 100, 109, 110, 111, 127, 133, 141, 146, 175, 193, 194, 203, 246, 247, 257, 301, 312, 337, 365, 370, 372, 374.

Research Problem: 161, 163, 193, 194, 198, 200, 202, 203, 207, 208, 210, 213, 215, 223, 230, 232, 234, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 255, 256, 258, 259, 260, 263, 264, 364, 370.

Research Question: 161, 162, 163, 164, 184, 289, 376.

Rhombicosidodecahedron: 51, 52.

Right: 300, 316, 326, 329, 382.

Roman numerals: 354, 362.

Royal Society of London: 303.

Safety: 237.

Scatter Plot: 361.

Schön scandal: 333.

Science: 4, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 39, 40, 41, 67, 75, 95, 108, 135, 137, 141, 142, 143, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 151, 152, 156, 168, 206, 221, 241, 251, 295, 296, 299, 302, 303, 314, 344, 360, 390.

Science (journal): 333, 334,

Science Popularisation: 51.

Scientific Approach: 98, 130, 131, 135, 136.

Scientific Fact: 36, 37, 56, 57, 65, 66, 67, 73, 78, 81, 90, 94, 95, 97, 99, 101, 183, 184.

Scientific Journal: 176.

Scientific Knowledge: 34, 35, 160, 231.

Scientific Method: 46, 75, 77, 97, 101, 137, 141, 142, 156, 157, 160, 161, 162, 164, 168, 171, 174, 175, 176, 181, 182, 183, 185, 193, 195, 198, 233, 234, 241, 242, 282, 288, 290,
313, 343, 344, 345, 383, 387.

Scientific Thinking: 39, 40, 41.

Scientific Writing: 345, 348, 352.

Screening: 139.

Secondary Source: 279, 280, 281, 287.

Selective Reading: 193, 200, 203, 210, 255.

Self-driving Car: 300.

Self-Publishing: 382.

Semantics-preserving Plagiarism: 340.

Sense: 15, 16, 20, 25, 32, 36, 74, 78.

Sensory: 16, 19, 21, 76, 144.

Sensory Induction: 127.

Set Theory: 261, 262.

Simple Fact: 58, 70, 71, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 92, 97, 98, 99, 149, 224.

Skepticism: 148, 175, 182, 183, 303, 311, 314, 335.

Slavery: 65.

Socialism: 50.

Social Media: 217, 237.

Social Sciences: 144, 149, 150, 239.

Sociology: 150.

Sorting: 113, 114, 168, 263.

Specificity: 23, 161, 281.

Stand-alone State-of-the-art: 248, 249.

Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy: 219.

State-of-the-art: 158, 162, 163, 173, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 247, 248, 250, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 262, 264, 265, 282, 370.

Statistics: 360.

Studyability: 231, 237.

Subjective: 16, 67, 130, 133, 135, 352.

Subjectivity: 131, 132, 301, 310, 311, 345, 357.

Survey: 137, 139, 199, 248, 249, 281, 287, 306, 326, 374, 375.
Sustainability: 319, 321.

Syntax-preserving

Plagiarism: 340.

Synthesis: 55, 56.

Systematic: 33, 34, 35, 39, 40, 55, 57, 61, 67, 102, 107, 109, 110, 116, 141, 178, 181, 311.

Systemacity: 142, 175, 180.

Table: 199, 205, 367, 368, 379, 384.

Table of contents: 367, 368, 379, 384.

Taxonomy: 111, 115, 123, 124.

Technical Reports: 378.

Tertiary Source: 279, 281, 289.

Terminology: 142.

Testability: 141, 142.

Test: 30, 31, 38, 68, 75, 79, 82, 84, 88, 94, 147, 157, 158, 160, 162, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 171, 174, 177, 179, 215, 223, 224,

225, 230, 246, 282, 291, 299, 307, 311, 376, 378.

Testable: 33, 35, 57, 61, 94, 141, 146, 147.

The Chicago Manual of Style: 270.

The Hobbit: 121, 122.

The Lord of The Ring: 13, 121, 122.

The Origin of Continents and Oceans: 154.

The Republic: 48.

The Skeptics Society: 182.

The Story of Civilisation: 43.

The Three Impossible Constructions: 181.

The Time: 304.

Theorem: 78, 80, 81, 85, 86, 87, 91, 93, 95, 99,

Theory: 78, 79, 80, 81, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 89, 91, 92, 93, 99, 155, 165, 166, 215, 225, 332.

Theory of Continental Drift: 153, 154, 156, 165.

Theory of Everything: 90.
Theory of Relativity: 88.

Thesis: 56, 164, 195, 196,
249, 254, 256, 290, 291,
294, 341, 356, 364, 365,
367, 369, 371, 377, 381,
383, 385, 386, 389.

Timeline: 247, 248, 264.

Torah: 104.

Total induction: 55, 56.

Tragedy: 132.

Translation: 341.

Transparency: 300, 301,
305, 312, 314, 345.

Trump presidential
campaign: 325.

Truthiness: 94.

UFO: 152.

Ufology: 152.

Universalism: 148.

Universe: 152.

URL: 292, 294.

Vaccination: 153, 302, 335,
336.

Valid: 62, 65, 79, 80, 94,
154, 183, 186, 230, 307.

Validation: 91, 94.

Validity: 61, 62, 63, 69, 94,
110, 135, 135, 145, 153,
158, 160, 172, 176, 186,
189, 312, 313, 314, 376.

Verifiable: 147.

Verifiability: 19, 20, 21,
145, 285.

Verification: 44, 55, 67, 68,
78.

VIAF: 197.

Visual Media: 267.

Volume: 268, 269, 287,
289, 294, 373, 386.

Wikipedia: 218, 219, 222,
226, 227, 228, 229.

Worldcat: 276.

World War II: 9, 10, 153,
308.

World Wide Web: 292.

π: 71, 72, 251.
# References

Arranged according to their appearance in the book.

## I. Peer-reviewed articles

### In English

[ARE01] Benjamin Botermann; Dennis Bing; Christopher Geppert; et al. (2014). "Test of Time Dilation Using Stored Li + Ions as Clocks at Relativistic Speed". Physical Review Letters. 113 (12): 1-6. arXiv: 1409.7951.

doi: 10.1103/PHYSREVLETT.113.120405.

ISSN: 0031-9007.

PMID: 25279611.

Wikidata: Q27450090.

[ARE02] Colin F. Camerer; Anna Dreber; Eskil Forsell; et al. (2016). "Evaluating replicability of laboratory experiments in economics". Science. 351 (6280): 1436-1433.

DOI: 10.1126/SCIENCE.AAF0918.

OCLC: 9986870316.

PMID: 26940865.

QID: Q38759980.

[ARE03] W. Robert Reed (2018). "A Primer on the 'Reproducibility Crisis' and Ways to Fix It". The Australian Economic Review. 51 (2): 300-286.

DOI: 10.1111/1467-8462.12262. ISSN: 0004-9018.

OCLC: 7667772603. QID: Q123653762.

[ARE04] Steven Rappaport (1996). "Abstraction and unrealistic assumptions in economics". Journal of
Economic Methodology. 3 : (2) 236-215.
DOI: 10.1080/13501789600000016. ISSN: 1350-178X. OCLC: 4646980992. QID: Q56047231.

[ARE05] David Colander (2000). "The Death of Neoclassical Economics". Journal of the History of Economic Thought. 22 (02): 127.
DOI: 10.1080/10427710050025330. ISSN: 1053-8372. OCLC: 8272489906. QID: Q56610489.

[ARE06] Cathy Barton (2002). "Marie Tharp, oceanographic cartographer, and her contributions to the revolution in the Earth sciences". Geological Society Special Publication. 192 (1): 215-228.
doi: 10.1144/GSL.SP.2002.192.01.11. ISSN: 0305-8719. OCLC: 4648682820. QID: Q56577314.

[ARE07] Bruce C. Heezen (1960). "The Rift in the Ocean Floor". Scientific American. 203 (4): 98-110.
doi:10.1038/SCIENTIFICAMERICAN1060-98.
ISSN: 0036-8733. OCLC: 9987284991.
QID: Q55878542.

[ARE08] D. R. Carney; A. J. C. Cuddy; A. J. Yap (2010). "Power Posing: Brief Nonverbal Displays Affect Neuroendocrine Levels and Risk Tolerance". Psychological Science. 21 (10): 1363-1368.
doi: 10.1177/0956797610383437. ISSN: 0956-7976. PMID: 20855902. OCLD: 672306762.
QID: Q22299255.

[ARE09] Eva Ranehill; Anna Dreber; Magnus Johannesson; Susanne Leiberg; Sunhae Sul; Roberto A Weber (2015). "Assessing the robustness of power posing:
no effect on hormones and risk tolerance in a large
sample of men and women". Psychological Science.
26 (5): 653–656. doi: 10.1177/0956797614553946.
ISSN: 0956-7976. PMID: 25810452.
OCLC: 5824353487. QID: Q34468699.

[ARE10] Joseph P Simmons; Uri Simonsohn (20 March 2017). "Power Posing: P-Curving the Evidence". Psychological Science. 28 (5): 687–693. doi:10.1177/0956797616658563. ISSN: 0956-7976. OCLC: 7034212023. PMID: 28485698. QID: Q59346037.

[ARE11] Jeffrey Beall (2013). "The Open-Access Movement is Not Really about Open Access". tripleC. 11 (2): 597–589. DOI: 10.31269/TRIPLEC.V11I2.525. ISSN: 1726-670X. OCLC: 7724411930. QID: Q58484257.

[ARE12] Richard Van Noorden (2020). "Hundreds of scientists have peer-reviewed for predatory journals". Nature. DOI: 10.1038/D41586-020-00709-X. ISSN: 1476-4687. OCLC: 8549652292. PMID: 32161349. QID: Q90246208.

[ARE13] Bhakti Hansoti; Mark Langdorf; Linda S Murphy (2016). "Discriminating Between Legitimate and Predatory Open Access Journals: Report from the International Federation for Emergency Medicine Research Committee". The western journal of emergency medicine (5) 17: 507–497. DOI: 10.5811/WESTJEM.2016.7.30328 ISSN: 1936-