research publish paper

Buy Me a Coffee

Home » How to Publish a Research Paper – Step by Step Guide

How to Publish a Research Paper – Step by Step Guide

Table of Contents

Publishing a research paper is an important step for researchers to disseminate their findings to a wider audience and contribute to the advancement of knowledge in their field. Whether you are a graduate student, a postdoctoral fellow, or an established researcher, publishing a paper requires careful planning, rigorous research, and clear writing. In this process, you will need to identify a research question , conduct a thorough literature review , design a methodology, analyze data, and draw conclusions. Additionally, you will need to consider the appropriate journals or conferences to submit your work to and adhere to their guidelines for formatting and submission. In this article, we will discuss some ways to publish your Research Paper.

How to Publish a Research Paper

To Publish a Research Paper follow the guide below:

Conduct original research : Conduct thorough research on a specific topic or problem. Collect data, analyze it, and draw conclusions based on your findings.
Write the paper : Write a detailed paper describing your research. It should include an abstract, introduction, literature review, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion.
Choose a suitable journal or conference : Look for a journal or conference that specializes in your research area. You can check their submission guidelines to ensure your paper meets their requirements.
Prepare your submission: Follow the guidelines and prepare your submission, including the paper, abstract, cover letter, and any other required documents.
Submit the paper: Submit your paper online through the journal or conference website. Make sure you meet the submission deadline.
Peer-review process : Your paper will be reviewed by experts in the field who will provide feedback on the quality of your research, methodology, and conclusions.
Revisions : Based on the feedback you receive, revise your paper and resubmit it.
Acceptance : Once your paper is accepted, you will receive a notification from the journal or conference. You may need to make final revisions before the paper is published.
Publication : Your paper will be published online or in print. You can also promote your work through social media or other channels to increase its visibility.

How to Choose Journal for Research Paper Publication

Here are some steps to follow to help you select an appropriate journal:

Identify your research topic and audience : Your research topic and intended audience should guide your choice of journal. Identify the key journals in your field of research and read the scope and aim of the journal to determine if your paper is a good fit.
Analyze the journal’s impact and reputation : Check the impact factor and ranking of the journal, as well as its acceptance rate and citation frequency. A high-impact journal can give your paper more visibility and credibility.
Consider the journal’s publication policies : Look for the journal’s publication policies such as the word count limit, formatting requirements, open access options, and submission fees. Make sure that you can comply with the requirements and that the journal is in line with your publication goals.
Look at recent publications : Review recent issues of the journal to evaluate whether your paper would fit in with the journal’s current content and style.
Seek advice from colleagues and mentors: Ask for recommendations and suggestions from your colleagues and mentors in your field, especially those who have experience publishing in the same or similar journals.
Be prepared to make changes : Be prepared to revise your paper according to the requirements and guidelines of the chosen journal. It is also important to be open to feedback from the editor and reviewers.

List of Journals for Research Paper Publications

There are thousands of academic journals covering various fields of research. Here are some of the most popular ones, categorized by field:

General/Multidisciplinary

Nature: https://www.nature.com/
Science: https://www.sciencemag.org/
PLOS ONE: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS): https://www.pnas.org/
The Lancet: https://www.thelancet.com/
JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association): https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama

Social Sciences/Humanities

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/psp
Journal of Consumer Research: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/journals/jcr
Journal of Educational Psychology: https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/edu
Journal of Applied Psychology: https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/apl
Journal of Communication: https://academic.oup.com/joc
American Journal of Political Science: https://ajps.org/
Journal of International Business Studies: https://www.jibs.net/
Journal of Marketing Research: https://www.ama.org/journal-of-marketing-research/

Natural Sciences

Journal of Biological Chemistry: https://www.jbc.org/
Cell: https://www.cell.com/
Science Advances: https://advances.sciencemag.org/
Chemical Reviews: https://pubs.acs.org/journal/chreay
Angewandte Chemie: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/15213765
Physical Review Letters: https://journals.aps.org/prl/
Journal of Geophysical Research: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/2156531X
Journal of High Energy Physics: https://link.springer.com/journal/13130

Engineering/Technology

IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/RecentIssue.jsp?punumber=5962385
IEEE Transactions on Power Systems: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/RecentIssue.jsp?punumber=59
IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/RecentIssue.jsp?punumber=42
IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/RecentIssue.jsp?punumber=87
Journal of Engineering Mechanics: https://ascelibrary.org/journal/jenmdt
Journal of Materials Science: https://www.springer.com/journal/10853
Journal of Chemical Engineering of Japan: https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/browse/jcej
Journal of Mechanical Design: https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/mechanicaldesign

Medical/Health Sciences

New England Journal of Medicine: https://www.nejm.org/
The BMJ (formerly British Medical Journal): https://www.bmj.com/
Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA): https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama
Annals of Internal Medicine: https://www.acpjournals.org/journal/aim
American Journal of Epidemiology: https://academic.oup.com/aje
Journal of Clinical Oncology: https://ascopubs.org/journal/jco
Journal of Infectious Diseases: https://academic.oup.com/jid

List of Conferences for Research Paper Publications

There are many conferences that accept research papers for publication. The specific conferences you should consider will depend on your field of research. Here are some suggestions for conferences in a few different fields:

Computer Science and Information Technology:

IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM): https://www.ieee-infocom.org/
ACM SIGCOMM Conference on Data Communication: https://conferences.sigcomm.org/sigcomm/
IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP): https://www.ieee-security.org/TC/SP/
ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS): https://www.sigsac.org/ccs/
ACM Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (CHI): https://chi2022.acm.org/

Engineering:

IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA): https://www.ieee-icra.org/
International Conference on Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering (ICMAE): http://www.icmae.org/
International Conference on Civil and Environmental Engineering (ICCEE): http://www.iccee.org/
International Conference on Materials Science and Engineering (ICMSE): http://www.icmse.org/
International Conference on Energy and Power Engineering (ICEPE): http://www.icepe.org/

Natural Sciences:

American Chemical Society National Meeting & Exposition: https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/meetings/national-meeting.html
American Physical Society March Meeting: https://www.aps.org/meetings/march/
International Conference on Environmental Science and Technology (ICEST): http://www.icest.org/
International Conference on Natural Science and Environment (ICNSE): http://www.icnse.org/
International Conference on Life Science and Biological Engineering (LSBE): http://www.lsbe.org/

Social Sciences:

Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association (ASA): https://www.asanet.org/annual-meeting-2022
International Conference on Social Science and Humanities (ICSSH): http://www.icssh.org/
International Conference on Psychology and Behavioral Sciences (ICPBS): http://www.icpbs.org/
International Conference on Education and Social Science (ICESS): http://www.icess.org/
International Conference on Management and Information Science (ICMIS): http://www.icmis.org/

How to Publish a Research Paper in Journal

Publishing a research paper in a journal is a crucial step in disseminating scientific knowledge and contributing to the field. Here are the general steps to follow:

Choose a research topic : Select a topic of your interest and identify a research question or problem that you want to investigate. Conduct a literature review to identify the gaps in the existing knowledge that your research will address.
Conduct research : Develop a research plan and methodology to collect data and conduct experiments. Collect and analyze data to draw conclusions that address the research question.
Write a paper: Organize your findings into a well-structured paper with clear and concise language. Your paper should include an introduction, literature review, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion. Use academic language and provide references for your sources.
Choose a journal: Choose a journal that is relevant to your research topic and audience. Consider factors such as impact factor, acceptance rate, and the reputation of the journal.
Follow journal guidelines : Review the submission guidelines and formatting requirements of the journal. Follow the guidelines carefully to ensure that your paper meets the journal’s requirements.
Submit your paper : Submit your paper to the journal through the online submission system or by email. Include a cover letter that briefly explains the significance of your research and why it is suitable for the journal.
Wait for reviews: Your paper will be reviewed by experts in the field. Be prepared to address their comments and make revisions to your paper.
Revise and resubmit: Make revisions to your paper based on the reviewers’ comments and resubmit it to the journal. If your paper is accepted, congratulations! If not, consider revising and submitting it to another journal.
Address reviewer comments : Reviewers may provide comments and suggestions for revisions to your paper. Address these comments carefully and thoughtfully to improve the quality of your paper.
Submit the final version: Once your revisions are complete, submit the final version of your paper to the journal. Be sure to follow any additional formatting guidelines and requirements provided by the journal.
Publication : If your paper is accepted, it will be published in the journal. Some journals provide online publication while others may publish a print version. Be sure to cite your published paper in future research and communicate your findings to the scientific community.

How to Publish a Research Paper for Students

Here are some steps you can follow to publish a research paper as an Under Graduate or a High School Student:

Select a topic: Choose a topic that is relevant and interesting to you, and that you have a good understanding of.
Conduct research : Gather information and data on your chosen topic through research, experiments, surveys, or other means.
Write the paper : Start with an outline, then write the introduction, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion sections of the paper. Be sure to follow any guidelines provided by your instructor or the journal you plan to submit to.
Edit and revise: Review your paper for errors in spelling, grammar, and punctuation. Ask a peer or mentor to review your paper and provide feedback for improvement.
Choose a journal : Look for journals that publish papers in your field of study and that are appropriate for your level of research. Some popular journals for students include PLOS ONE, Nature, and Science.
Submit the paper: Follow the submission guidelines for the journal you choose, which typically include a cover letter, abstract, and formatting requirements. Be prepared to wait several weeks to months for a response.
Address feedback : If your paper is accepted with revisions, address the feedback from the reviewers and resubmit your paper. If your paper is rejected, review the feedback and consider revising and resubmitting to a different journal.

How to Publish a Research Paper for Free

Publishing a research paper for free can be challenging, but it is possible. Here are some steps you can take to publish your research paper for free:

Choose a suitable open-access journal: Look for open-access journals that are relevant to your research area. Open-access journals allow readers to access your paper without charge, so your work will be more widely available.
Check the journal’s reputation : Before submitting your paper, ensure that the journal is reputable by checking its impact factor, publication history, and editorial board.
Follow the submission guidelines : Every journal has specific guidelines for submitting papers. Make sure to follow these guidelines carefully to increase the chances of acceptance.
Submit your paper : Once you have completed your research paper, submit it to the journal following their submission guidelines.
Wait for the review process: Your paper will undergo a peer-review process, where experts in your field will evaluate your work. Be patient during this process, as it can take several weeks or even months.
Revise your paper : If your paper is rejected, don’t be discouraged. Revise your paper based on the feedback you receive from the reviewers and submit it to another open-access journal.
Promote your research: Once your paper is published, promote it on social media and other online platforms. This will increase the visibility of your work and help it reach a wider audience.

Journals and Conferences for Free Research Paper publications

Here are the websites of the open-access journals and conferences mentioned:

Open-Access Journals:

PLOS ONE – https://journals.plos.org/plosone/
BMC Research Notes – https://bmcresnotes.biomedcentral.com/
Frontiers in… – https://www.frontiersin.org/
Journal of Open Research Software – https://openresearchsoftware.metajnl.com/
PeerJ – https://peerj.com/

Conferences:

IEEE Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOM) – https://globecom2022.ieee-globecom.org/
IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM) – https://infocom2022.ieee-infocom.org/
IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM) – https://www.ieee-icdm.org/
ACM SIGCOMM Conference on Data Communication (SIGCOMM) – https://conferences.sigcomm.org/sigcomm/
ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS) – https://www.sigsac.org/ccs/CCS2022/

Importance of Research Paper Publication

Research paper publication is important for several reasons, both for individual researchers and for the scientific community as a whole. Here are some reasons why:

Advancing scientific knowledge : Research papers provide a platform for researchers to present their findings and contribute to the body of knowledge in their field. These papers often contain novel ideas, experimental data, and analyses that can help to advance scientific understanding.
Building a research career : Publishing research papers is an essential component of building a successful research career. Researchers are often evaluated based on the number and quality of their publications, and having a strong publication record can increase one’s chances of securing funding, tenure, or a promotion.
Peer review and quality control: Publication in a peer-reviewed journal means that the research has been scrutinized by other experts in the field. This peer review process helps to ensure the quality and validity of the research findings.
Recognition and visibility : Publishing a research paper can bring recognition and visibility to the researchers and their work. It can lead to invitations to speak at conferences, collaborations with other researchers, and media coverage.
Impact on society : Research papers can have a significant impact on society by informing policy decisions, guiding clinical practice, and advancing technological innovation.

Advantages of Research Paper Publication

There are several advantages to publishing a research paper, including:

Recognition: Publishing a research paper allows researchers to gain recognition for their work, both within their field and in the academic community as a whole. This can lead to new collaborations, invitations to conferences, and other opportunities to share their research with a wider audience.
Career advancement : A strong publication record can be an important factor in career advancement, particularly in academia. Publishing research papers can help researchers secure funding, grants, and promotions.
Dissemination of knowledge : Research papers are an important way to share new findings and ideas with the broader scientific community. By publishing their research, scientists can contribute to the collective body of knowledge in their field and help advance scientific understanding.
Feedback and peer review : Publishing a research paper allows other experts in the field to provide feedback on the research, which can help improve the quality of the work and identify potential flaws or limitations. Peer review also helps ensure that research is accurate and reliable.
Citation and impact : Published research papers can be cited by other researchers, which can help increase the impact and visibility of the research. High citation rates can also help establish a researcher’s reputation and credibility within their field.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

Research Paper Conclusion – Writing Guide and...

Appendices – Writing Guide, Types and Examples

How to Cite Research Paper – All Formats and...

Delimitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Scope of the Research – Writing Guide and...

Research Contribution – Thesis Guide

PRO Courses Guides New Tech Help Pro Expert Videos About wikiHow Pro Upgrade Sign In
EDIT Edit this Article
EXPLORE Tech Help Pro About Us Random Article Quizzes Request a New Article Community Dashboard This Or That Game Popular Categories Arts and Entertainment Artwork Books Movies Computers and Electronics Computers Phone Skills Technology Hacks Health Men's Health Mental Health Women's Health Relationships Dating Love Relationship Issues Hobbies and Crafts Crafts Drawing Games Education & Communication Communication Skills Personal Development Studying Personal Care and Style Fashion Hair Care Personal Hygiene Youth Personal Care School Stuff Dating All Categories Arts and Entertainment Finance and Business Home and Garden Relationship Quizzes Cars & Other Vehicles Food and Entertaining Personal Care and Style Sports and Fitness Computers and Electronics Health Pets and Animals Travel Education & Communication Hobbies and Crafts Philosophy and Religion Work World Family Life Holidays and Traditions Relationships Youth
Browse Articles
Learn Something New
Quizzes Hot
This Or That Game New
Train Your Brain
Explore More
Support wikiHow
About wikiHow
Log in / Sign up
Education and Communications
College University and Postgraduate
Academic Writing
Research Papers

How to Write and Publish Your Research in a Journal

Last Updated: February 26, 2024 Fact Checked

Choosing a Journal

Writing the research paper, editing & revising your paper, submitting your paper, navigating the peer review process, research paper help.

This article was co-authored by Matthew Snipp, PhD and by wikiHow staff writer, Cheyenne Main . C. Matthew Snipp is the Burnet C. and Mildred Finley Wohlford Professor of Humanities and Sciences in the Department of Sociology at Stanford University. He is also the Director for the Institute for Research in the Social Science’s Secure Data Center. He has been a Research Fellow at the U.S. Bureau of the Census and a Fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences. He has published 3 books and over 70 articles and book chapters on demography, economic development, poverty and unemployment. He is also currently serving on the National Institute of Child Health and Development’s Population Science Subcommittee. He holds a Ph.D. in Sociology from the University of Wisconsin—Madison. There are 13 references cited in this article, which can be found at the bottom of the page. This article has been fact-checked, ensuring the accuracy of any cited facts and confirming the authority of its sources. This article has been viewed 694,702 times.

Publishing a research paper in a peer-reviewed journal allows you to network with other scholars, get your name and work into circulation, and further refine your ideas and research. Before submitting your paper, make sure it reflects all the work you’ve done and have several people read over it and make comments. Keep reading to learn how you can choose a journal, prepare your work for publication, submit it, and revise it after you get a response back.

Things You Should Know

Create a list of journals you’d like to publish your work in and choose one that best aligns with your topic and your desired audience.
Prepare your manuscript using the journal’s requirements and ask at least 2 professors or supervisors to review your paper.
Write a cover letter that “sells” your manuscript, says how your research adds to your field and explains why you chose the specific journal you’re submitting to.

Step 1 Create a list of journals you’d like to publish your work in.

Ask your professors or supervisors for well-respected journals that they’ve had good experiences publishing with and that they read regularly.
Many journals also only accept specific formats, so by choosing a journal before you start, you can write your article to their specifications and increase your chances of being accepted.
If you’ve already written a paper you’d like to publish, consider whether your research directly relates to a hot topic or area of research in the journals you’re looking into.

Step 2 Look at each journal’s audience, exposure, policies, and procedures.

Review the journal’s peer review policies and submission process to see if you’re comfortable creating or adjusting your work according to their standards.
Open-access journals can increase your readership because anyone can access them.

Step 1 Craft an effective introduction with a thesis statement.

Scientific research papers: Instead of a “thesis,” you might write a “research objective” instead. This is where you state the purpose of your research.
“This paper explores how George Washington’s experiences as a young officer may have shaped his views during difficult circumstances as a commanding officer.”
“This paper contends that George Washington’s experiences as a young officer on the 1750s Pennsylvania frontier directly impacted his relationship with his Continental Army troops during the harsh winter at Valley Forge.”

Step 2 Write the literature review and the body of your paper.

Scientific research papers: Include a “materials and methods” section with the step-by-step process you followed and the materials you used. [5] X Research source
Read other research papers in your field to see how they’re written. Their format, writing style, subject matter, and vocabulary can help guide your own paper. [6] X Research source

Step 3 Write your conclusion that ties back to your thesis or research objective.

If you’re writing about George Washington’s experiences as a young officer, you might emphasize how this research changes our perspective of the first president of the U.S.
Link this section to your thesis or research objective.
If you’re writing a paper about ADHD, you might discuss other applications for your research.

Step 4 Write an abstract that describes what your paper is about.

Scientific research papers: You might include your research and/or analytical methods, your main findings or results, and the significance or implications of your research.
Try to get as many people as you can to read over your abstract and provide feedback before you submit your paper to a journal.

Step 1 Prepare your manuscript according to the journal’s requirements.

They might also provide templates to help you structure your manuscript according to their specific guidelines. [11] X Research source

Step 2 Ask 2 colleagues to review your paper and revise it with their notes.

Not all journal reviewers will be experts on your specific topic, so a non-expert “outsider’s perspective” can be valuable.

Step 1 Check your sources for plagiarism and identify 5 to 6 keywords.

If you have a paper on the purification of wastewater with fungi, you might use both the words “fungi” and “mushrooms.”
Use software like iThenticate, Turnitin, or PlagScan to check for similarities between the submitted article and published material available online. [15] X Research source

Step 2 Write a cover letter explaining why you chose their journal.

Header: Address the editor who will be reviewing your manuscript by their name, include the date of submission, and the journal you are submitting to.
First paragraph: Include the title of your manuscript, the type of paper it is (like review, research, or case study), and the research question you wanted to answer and why.
Second paragraph: Explain what was done in your research, your main findings, and why they are significant to your field.
Third paragraph: Explain why the journal’s readers would be interested in your work and why your results are important to your field.
Conclusion: State the author(s) and any journal requirements that your work complies with (like ethical standards”).
“We confirm that this manuscript has not been published elsewhere and is not under consideration by another journal.”
“All authors have approved the manuscript and agree with its submission to [insert the name of the target journal].”

Step 3 Submit your article according to the journal’s submission guidelines.

Submit your article to only one journal at a time.
When submitting online, use your university email account. This connects you with a scholarly institution, which can add credibility to your work.

Step 1 Try not to panic when you get the journal’s initial response.

Accept: Only minor adjustments are needed, based on the provided feedback by the reviewers. A first submission will rarely be accepted without any changes needed.
Revise and Resubmit: Changes are needed before publication can be considered, but the journal is still very interested in your work.
Reject and Resubmit: Extensive revisions are needed. Your work may not be acceptable for this journal, but they might also accept it if significant changes are made.
Reject: The paper isn’t and won’t be suitable for this publication, but that doesn’t mean it might not work for another journal.

Step 2 Revise your paper based on the reviewers’ feedback.

Try organizing the reviewer comments by how easy it is to address them. That way, you can break your revisions down into more manageable parts.
If you disagree with a comment made by a reviewer, try to provide an evidence-based explanation when you resubmit your paper.

Step 3 Resubmit to the same journal or choose another from your list.

If you’re resubmitting your paper to the same journal, include a point-by-point response paper that talks about how you addressed all of the reviewers’ comments in your revision. [22] X Research source
If you’re not sure which journal to submit to next, you might be able to ask the journal editor which publications they recommend.

Expert Q&A

About This Article

To publish a research paper, ask a colleague or professor to review your paper and give you feedback. Once you've revised your work, familiarize yourself with different academic journals so that you can choose the publication that best suits your paper. Make sure to look at the "Author's Guide" so you can format your paper according to the guidelines for that publication. Then, submit your paper and don't get discouraged if it is not accepted right away. You may need to revise your paper and try again. To learn about the different responses you might get from journals, see our reviewer's explanation below. Did this summary help you? Yes No

Send fan mail to authors

Reader Success Stories

RAMDEV GOHIL

Oct 16, 2017

Did this article help you?

David Okandeji

Oct 23, 2019

Revati Joshi

Feb 13, 2017

Shahzad Khan

Jul 1, 2017

Apr 7, 2017

Featured Articles

Watch Articles

Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
Do Not Sell or Share My Info
Not Selling Info

wikiHow Tech Help Pro:

Develop the tech skills you need for work and life

Home → Get Published → How to Publish a Research Paper: A Step-by-Step Guide

How to Publish a Research Paper: A Step-by-Step Guide

Jordan Kruszynski

January 4, 2024

You’re in academia.

You’re going steady.

Your research is going well and you begin to wonder: ‘ How exactly do I get a research paper published?’

If this is the question on your lips, then this step-by-step guide is the one for you. We’ll be walking you through the whole process of how to publish a research paper.

Publishing a research paper is a significant milestone for researchers and academics, as it allows you to share your findings, contribute to your field of study, and start to gain serious recognition within the wider academic community. So, want to know how to publish a research paper? By following our guide, you’ll get a firm grasp of the steps involved in this process, giving you the best chance of successfully navigating the publishing process and getting your work out there.

Understanding the Publishing Process

To begin, it’s crucial to understand that getting a research paper published is a multi-step process. From beginning to end, it could take as little as 2 months before you see your paper nestled in the pages of your chosen journal. On the other hand, it could take as long as a year .

Below, we set out the steps before going into more detail on each one. Getting a feel for these steps will help you to visualise what lies ahead, and prepare yourself for each of them in turn. It’s important to remember that you won’t actually have control over every step – in fact, some of them will be decided by people you’ll probably never meet. However, knowing which parts of the process are yours to decide will allow you to adjust your approach and attitude accordingly.

Each of the following stages will play a vital role in the eventual publication of your paper:

Preparing Your Research Paper
Finding the Right Journal
Crafting a Strong Manuscript
Navigating the Peer-Review Process
Submitting Your Paper
Dealing with Rejections and Revising Your Paper

Step 1: Preparing Your Research Paper

It all starts here. The quality and content of your research paper is of fundamental importance if you want to get it published. This step will be different for every researcher depending on the nature of your research, but if you haven’t yet settled on a topic, then consider the following advice:

Choose an interesting and relevant topic that aligns with current trends in your field. If your research touches on the passions and concerns of your academic peers or wider society, it may be more likely to capture attention and get published successfully.
Conduct a comprehensive literature review (link to lit. review article once it’s published) to identify the state of existing research and any knowledge gaps within it. Aiming to fill a clear gap in the knowledge of your field is a great way to increase the practicality of your research and improve its chances of getting published.
Structure your paper in a clear and organised manner, including all the necessary sections such as title, abstract, introduction (link to the ‘how to write a research paper intro’ article once it’s published) , methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion.
Adhere to the formatting guidelines provided by your target journal to ensure that your paper is accepted as viable for publishing. More on this in the next section…

Step 2: Finding the Right Journal

Understanding how to publish a research paper involves selecting the appropriate journal for your work. This step is critical for successful publication, and you should take several factors into account when deciding which journal to apply for:

Conduct thorough research to identify journals that specialise in your field of study and have published similar research. Naturally, if you submit a piece of research in molecular genetics to a journal that specialises in geology, you won’t be likely to get very far.
Consider factors such as the journal’s scope, impact factor, and target audience. Today there is a wide array of journals to choose from, including traditional and respected print journals, as well as numerous online, open-access endeavours. Some, like Nature , even straddle both worlds.
Review the submission guidelines provided by the journal and ensure your paper meets all the formatting requirements and word limits. This step is key. Nature, for example, offers a highly informative series of pages that tells you everything you need to know in order to satisfy their formatting guidelines (plus more on the whole submission process).
Note that these guidelines can differ dramatically from journal to journal, and details really do matter. You might submit an outstanding piece of research, but if it includes, for example, images in the wrong size or format, this could mean a lengthy delay to getting it published. If you get everything right first time, you’ll save yourself a lot of time and trouble, as well as strengthen your publishing chances in the first place.

Step 3: Crafting a Strong Manuscript

Crafting a strong manuscript is crucial to impress journal editors and reviewers. Look at your paper as a complete package, and ensure that all the sections tie together to deliver your findings with clarity and precision.

Begin by creating a clear and concise title that accurately reflects the content of your paper.
Compose an informative abstract that summarises the purpose, methodology, results, and significance of your study.
Craft an engaging introduction (link to the research paper introduction article) that draws your reader in.
Develop a well-structured methodology section, presenting your results effectively using tables and figures.
Write a compelling discussion and conclusion that emphasise the significance of your findings.

Step 4: Navigating the Peer-Review Process

Once you submit your research paper to a journal, it undergoes a rigorous peer-review process to ensure its quality and validity. In peer-review, experts in your field assess your research and provide feedback and suggestions for improvement, ultimately determining whether your paper is eligible for publishing or not. You are likely to encounter several models of peer-review, based on which party – author, reviewer, or both – remains anonymous throughout the process.

When your paper undergoes the peer-review process, be prepared for constructive criticism and address the comments you receive from your reviewer thoughtfully, providing clear and concise responses to their concerns or suggestions. These could make all the difference when it comes to making your next submission.

The peer-review process can seem like a closed book at times. Check out our discussion of the issue with philosopher and academic Amna Whiston in The Research Beat podcast!

Step 5: Submitting Your Paper

As we’ve already pointed out, one of the key elements in how to publish a research paper is ensuring that you meticulously follow the journal’s submission guidelines. Strive to comply with all formatting requirements, including citation styles, font, margins, and reference structure.

Before the final submission, thoroughly proofread your paper for errors, including grammar, spelling, and any inconsistencies in your data or analysis. At this stage, consider seeking feedback from colleagues or mentors to further improve the quality of your paper.

Step 6: Dealing with Rejections and Revising Your Paper

Rejection is a common part of the publishing process, but it shouldn’t discourage you. Analyse reviewer comments objectively and focus on the constructive feedback provided. Make necessary revisions and improvements to your paper to address the concerns raised by reviewers. If needed, consider submitting your paper to a different journal that is a better fit for your research.

For more tips on how to publish your paper out there, check out this thread by Dr. Asad Naveed ( @dr_asadnaveed ) – and if you need a refresher on the basics of how to publish under the Open Access model, watch this 5-minute video from Audemic Academy !

Final Thoughts

Successfully understanding how to publish a research paper requires dedication, attention to detail, and a systematic approach. By following the advice in our guide, you can increase your chances of navigating the publishing process effectively and achieving your goal of publication.

Remember, the journey may involve revisions, peer feedback, and potential rejections, but each step is an opportunity for growth and improvement. Stay persistent, maintain a positive mindset, and continue to refine your research paper until it reaches the standards of your target journal. Your contribution to your wider discipline through published research will not only advance your career, but also add to the growing body of collective knowledge in your field. Embrace the challenges and rewards that come with the publication process, and may your research paper make a significant impact in your area of study!

Looking for inspiration for your next big paper? Head to Audemic , where you can organise and listen to all the best and latest research in your field!

Keep striving, researchers! ✨

Behind the Scenes: What Does a Research Assistant Do?

Have you ever wondered what goes on behind the scenes in a research lab? Does it involve acting out the whims of

How to Write a Research Paper Introduction: Hook, Line, and Sinker

Want to know how to write a research paper introduction that dazzles? Struggling to hook your reader in with your opening sentences?

Blog Podcast

Subscribe to our newsletter!

Discover more from Audemic: Access any academic research via audio

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Type your email…

How to Write and Publish a Research Paper for a Peer-Reviewed Journal

Open access
Published: 30 April 2020
Volume 36 , pages 909–913, ( 2021 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

Clara Busse ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0178-1000 1 &
Ella August ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5151-1036 1 , 2

259k Accesses

15 Citations

705 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Communicating research findings is an essential step in the research process. Often, peer-reviewed journals are the forum for such communication, yet many researchers are never taught how to write a publishable scientific paper. In this article, we explain the basic structure of a scientific paper and describe the information that should be included in each section. We also identify common pitfalls for each section and recommend strategies to avoid them. Further, we give advice about target journal selection and authorship. In the online resource 1 , we provide an example of a high-quality scientific paper, with annotations identifying the elements we describe in this article.

How to Choose the Right Journal

The Point Is…to Publish?

Some Opinions on the Review Process of Research Papers Destined for Publication

Ehsan Roohi & Omid Mahian

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Writing a scientific paper is an important component of the research process, yet researchers often receive little formal training in scientific writing. This is especially true in low-resource settings. In this article, we explain why choosing a target journal is important, give advice about authorship, provide a basic structure for writing each section of a scientific paper, and describe common pitfalls and recommendations for each section. In the online resource 1 , we also include an annotated journal article that identifies the key elements and writing approaches that we detail here. Before you begin your research, make sure you have ethical clearance from all relevant ethical review boards.

Select a Target Journal Early in the Writing Process

We recommend that you select a “target journal” early in the writing process; a “target journal” is the journal to which you plan to submit your paper. Each journal has a set of core readers and you should tailor your writing to this readership. For example, if you plan to submit a manuscript about vaping during pregnancy to a pregnancy-focused journal, you will need to explain what vaping is because readers of this journal may not have a background in this topic. However, if you were to submit that same article to a tobacco journal, you would not need to provide as much background information about vaping.

Information about a journal’s core readership can be found on its website, usually in a section called “About this journal” or something similar. For example, the Journal of Cancer Education presents such information on the “Aims and Scope” page of its website, which can be found here: https://www.springer.com/journal/13187/aims-and-scope .

Peer reviewer guidelines from your target journal are an additional resource that can help you tailor your writing to the journal and provide additional advice about crafting an effective article [ 1 ]. These are not always available, but it is worth a quick web search to find out.

Identify Author Roles Early in the Process

Early in the writing process, identify authors, determine the order of authors, and discuss the responsibilities of each author. Standard author responsibilities have been identified by The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) [ 2 ]. To set clear expectations about each team member’s responsibilities and prevent errors in communication, we also suggest outlining more detailed roles, such as who will draft each section of the manuscript, write the abstract, submit the paper electronically, serve as corresponding author, and write the cover letter. It is best to formalize this agreement in writing after discussing it, circulating the document to the author team for approval. We suggest creating a title page on which all authors are listed in the agreed-upon order. It may be necessary to adjust authorship roles and order during the development of the paper. If a new author order is agreed upon, be sure to update the title page in the manuscript draft.

In the case where multiple papers will result from a single study, authors should discuss who will author each paper. Additionally, authors should agree on a deadline for each paper and the lead author should take responsibility for producing an initial draft by this deadline.

Structure of the Introduction Section

The introduction section should be approximately three to five paragraphs in length. Look at examples from your target journal to decide the appropriate length. This section should include the elements shown in Fig. 1 . Begin with a general context, narrowing to the specific focus of the paper. Include five main elements: why your research is important, what is already known about the topic, the “gap” or what is not yet known about the topic, why it is important to learn the new information that your research adds, and the specific research aim(s) that your paper addresses. Your research aim should address the gap you identified. Be sure to add enough background information to enable readers to understand your study. Table 1 provides common introduction section pitfalls and recommendations for addressing them.

The main elements of the introduction section of an original research article. Often, the elements overlap

Methods Section

The purpose of the methods section is twofold: to explain how the study was done in enough detail to enable its replication and to provide enough contextual detail to enable readers to understand and interpret the results. In general, the essential elements of a methods section are the following: a description of the setting and participants, the study design and timing, the recruitment and sampling, the data collection process, the dataset, the dependent and independent variables, the covariates, the analytic approach for each research objective, and the ethical approval. The hallmark of an exemplary methods section is the justification of why each method was used. Table 2 provides common methods section pitfalls and recommendations for addressing them.

Results Section

The focus of the results section should be associations, or lack thereof, rather than statistical tests. Two considerations should guide your writing here. First, the results should present answers to each part of the research aim. Second, return to the methods section to ensure that the analysis and variables for each result have been explained.

Begin the results section by describing the number of participants in the final sample and details such as the number who were approached to participate, the proportion who were eligible and who enrolled, and the number of participants who dropped out. The next part of the results should describe the participant characteristics. After that, you may organize your results by the aim or by putting the most exciting results first. Do not forget to report your non-significant associations. These are still findings.

Tables and figures capture the reader’s attention and efficiently communicate your main findings [ 3 ]. Each table and figure should have a clear message and should complement, rather than repeat, the text. Tables and figures should communicate all salient details necessary for a reader to understand the findings without consulting the text. Include information on comparisons and tests, as well as information about the sample and timing of the study in the title, legend, or in a footnote. Note that figures are often more visually interesting than tables, so if it is feasible to make a figure, make a figure. To avoid confusing the reader, either avoid abbreviations in tables and figures, or define them in a footnote. Note that there should not be citations in the results section and you should not interpret results here. Table 3 provides common results section pitfalls and recommendations for addressing them.

Discussion Section

Opposite the introduction section, the discussion should take the form of a right-side-up triangle beginning with interpretation of your results and moving to general implications (Fig. 2 ). This section typically begins with a restatement of the main findings, which can usually be accomplished with a few carefully-crafted sentences.

Major elements of the discussion section of an original research article. Often, the elements overlap

Next, interpret the meaning or explain the significance of your results, lifting the reader’s gaze from the study’s specific findings to more general applications. Then, compare these study findings with other research. Are these findings in agreement or disagreement with those from other studies? Does this study impart additional nuance to well-accepted theories? Situate your findings within the broader context of scientific literature, then explain the pathways or mechanisms that might give rise to, or explain, the results.

Journals vary in their approach to strengths and limitations sections: some are embedded paragraphs within the discussion section, while some mandate separate section headings. Keep in mind that every study has strengths and limitations. Candidly reporting yours helps readers to correctly interpret your research findings.

The next element of the discussion is a summary of the potential impacts and applications of the research. Should these results be used to optimally design an intervention? Does the work have implications for clinical protocols or public policy? These considerations will help the reader to further grasp the possible impacts of the presented work.

Finally, the discussion should conclude with specific suggestions for future work. Here, you have an opportunity to illuminate specific gaps in the literature that compel further study. Avoid the phrase “future research is necessary” because the recommendation is too general to be helpful to readers. Instead, provide substantive and specific recommendations for future studies. Table 4 provides common discussion section pitfalls and recommendations for addressing them.

Follow the Journal’s Author Guidelines

After you select a target journal, identify the journal’s author guidelines to guide the formatting of your manuscript and references. Author guidelines will often (but not always) include instructions for titles, cover letters, and other components of a manuscript submission. Read the guidelines carefully. If you do not follow the guidelines, your article will be sent back to you.

Finally, do not submit your paper to more than one journal at a time. Even if this is not explicitly stated in the author guidelines of your target journal, it is considered inappropriate and unprofessional.

Your title should invite readers to continue reading beyond the first page [ 4 , 5 ]. It should be informative and interesting. Consider describing the independent and dependent variables, the population and setting, the study design, the timing, and even the main result in your title. Because the focus of the paper can change as you write and revise, we recommend you wait until you have finished writing your paper before composing the title.

Be sure that the title is useful for potential readers searching for your topic. The keywords you select should complement those in your title to maximize the likelihood that a researcher will find your paper through a database search. Avoid using abbreviations in your title unless they are very well known, such as SNP, because it is more likely that someone will use a complete word rather than an abbreviation as a search term to help readers find your paper.

After you have written a complete draft, use the checklist (Fig. 3 ) below to guide your revisions and editing. Additional resources are available on writing the abstract and citing references [ 5 ]. When you feel that your work is ready, ask a trusted colleague or two to read the work and provide informal feedback. The box below provides a checklist that summarizes the key points offered in this article.

Checklist for manuscript quality

Data Availability

Michalek AM (2014) Down the rabbit hole…advice to reviewers. J Cancer Educ 29:4–5

Article Google Scholar

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Defining the role of authors and contributors: who is an author? http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authosrs-and-contributors.html . Accessed 15 January, 2020

Vetto JT (2014) Short and sweet: a short course on concise medical writing. J Cancer Educ 29(1):194–195

Brett M, Kording K (2017) Ten simple rules for structuring papers. PLoS ComputBiol. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005619

Lang TA (2017) Writing a better research article. J Public Health Emerg. https://doi.org/10.21037/jphe.2017.11.06

Download references

Acknowledgments

Ella August is grateful to the Sustainable Sciences Institute for mentoring her in training researchers on writing and publishing their research.

Code Availability

Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Maternal and Child Health, University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health, 135 Dauer Dr, 27599, Chapel Hill, NC, USA

Clara Busse & Ella August

Department of Epidemiology, University of Michigan School of Public Health, 1415 Washington Heights, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-2029, USA

Ella August

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ella August .

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interests.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Electronic supplementary material

(PDF 362 kb)

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Busse, C., August, E. How to Write and Publish a Research Paper for a Peer-Reviewed Journal. J Canc Educ 36 , 909–913 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-020-01751-z

Download citation

Published : 30 April 2020

Issue Date : October 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-020-01751-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Manuscripts
Scientific writing
Find a journal
Publish with us
Track your research

You are using an outdated browser . Please upgrade your browser today !

How to Write and Publish a Research Paper in 7 Steps

What comes next after you're done with your research? Publishing the results in a journal of course! We tell you how to present your work in the best way possible.

This post is part of a series, which serves to provide hands-on information and resources for authors and editors.

Things have gotten busy in scholarly publishing: These days, a new article gets published in the 50,000 most important peer-reviewed journals every few seconds, while each one takes on average 40 minutes to read. Hundreds of thousands of papers reach the desks of editors and reviewers worldwide each year and 50% of all submissions end up rejected at some stage.

In a nutshell: there is a lot of competition, and the people who decide upon the fate of your manuscript are short on time and overworked. But there are ways to make their lives a little easier and improve your own chances of getting your work published!

Well, it may seem obvious, but before submitting an academic paper, always make sure that it is an excellent reflection of the research you have done and that you present it in the most professional way possible. Incomplete or poorly presented manuscripts can create a great deal of frustration and annoyance for editors who probably won’t even bother wasting the time of the reviewers!

This post will discuss 7 steps to the successful publication of your research paper:

Check whether your research is publication-ready
Choose an article type
Choose a journal
Construct your paper
Decide the order of authors
Check and double-check
Submit your paper

1. Check Whether Your Research Is Publication-Ready

Should you publish your research at all?

If your work holds academic value – of course – a well-written scholarly article could open doors to your research community. However, if you are not yet sure, whether your research is ready for publication, here are some key questions to ask yourself depending on your field of expertise:

Have you done or found something new and interesting? Something unique?
Is the work directly related to a current hot topic?
Have you checked the latest results or research in the field?
Have you provided solutions to any difficult problems?
Have the findings been verified?
Have the appropriate controls been performed if required?
Are your findings comprehensive?

If the answers to all relevant questions are “yes”, you need to prepare a good, strong manuscript. Remember, a research paper is only useful if it is clearly understood, reproducible and if it is read and used .

2. Choose An Article Type

The first step is to determine which type of paper is most appropriate for your work and what you want to achieve. The following list contains the most important, usually peer-reviewed article types in the natural sciences:

Full original research papers disseminate completed research findings. On average this type of paper is 8-10 pages long, contains five figures, and 25-30 references. Full original research papers are an important part of the process when developing your career.

Review papers present a critical synthesis of a specific research topic. These papers are usually much longer than original papers and will contain numerous references. More often than not, they will be commissioned by journal editors. Reviews present an excellent way to solidify your research career.

Letters, Rapid or Short Communications are often published for the quick and early communication of significant and original advances. They are much shorter than full articles and usually limited in length by the journal. Journals specifically dedicated to short communications or letters are also published in some fields. In these the authors can present short preliminary findings before developing a full-length paper.

3. Choose a Journal

Are you looking for the right place to publish your paper? Find out here whether a De Gruyter journal might be the right fit.

Submit to journals that you already read, that you have a good feel for. If you do so, you will have a better appreciation of both its culture and the requirements of the editors and reviewers.

Other factors to consider are:

The specific subject area
The aims and scope of the journal
The type of manuscript you have written
The significance of your work
The reputation of the journal
The reputation of the editors within the community
The editorial/review and production speeds of the journal
The community served by the journal
The coverage and distribution
The accessibility ( open access vs. closed access)

4. Construct Your Paper

Each element of a paper has its purpose, so you should make these sections easy to index and search.

Don’t forget that requirements can differ highly per publication, so always make sure to apply a journal’s specific instructions – or guide – for authors to your manuscript, even to the first draft (text layout, paper citation, nomenclature, figures and table, etc.) It will save you time, and the editor’s.

Also, even in these days of Internet-based publishing, space is still at a premium, so be as concise as possible. As a good journalist would say: “Never use three words when one will do!”

Let’s look at the typical structure of a full research paper, but bear in mind certain subject disciplines may have their own specific requirements so check the instructions for authors on the journal’s home page.

4.1 The Title

It’s important to use the title to tell the reader what your paper is all about! You want to attract their attention, a bit like a newspaper headline does. Be specific and to the point. Keep it informative and concise, and avoid jargon and abbreviations (unless they are universally recognized like DNA, for example).

4.2 The Abstract

This could be termed as the “advertisement” for your article. Make it interesting and easily understood without the reader having to read the whole article. Be accurate and specific, and keep it as brief and concise as possible. Some journals (particularly in the medical fields) will ask you to structure the abstract in distinct, labeled sections, which makes it even more accessible.

A clear abstract will influence whether or not your work is considered and whether an editor should invest more time on it or send it for review.

4.3 Keywords

Keywords are used by abstracting and indexing services, such as PubMed and Web of Science. They are the labels of your manuscript, which make it “searchable” online by other researchers.

Include words or phrases (usually 4-8) that are closely related to your topic but not “too niche” for anyone to find them. Make sure to only use established abbreviations. Think about what scientific terms and its variations your potential readers are likely to use and search for. You can also do a test run of your selected keywords in one of the common academic search engines. Do similar articles to your own appear? Yes? Then that’s a good sign.

4.4 Introduction

This first part of the main text should introduce the problem, as well as any existing solutions you are aware of and the main limitations. Also, state what you hope to achieve with your research.

Do not confuse the introduction with the results, discussion or conclusion.

4.5 Methods

Every research article should include a detailed Methods section (also referred to as “Materials and Methods”) to provide the reader with enough information to be able to judge whether the study is valid and reproducible.

Include detailed information so that a knowledgeable reader can reproduce the experiment. However, use references and supplementary materials to indicate previously published procedures.

4.6 Results

In this section, you will present the essential or primary results of your study. To display them in a comprehensible way, you should use subheadings as well as illustrations such as figures, graphs, tables and photos, as appropriate.

4.7 Discussion

Here you should tell your readers what the results mean .

Do state how the results relate to the study’s aims and hypotheses and how the findings relate to those of other studies. Explain all possible interpretations of your findings and the study’s limitations.

Do not make “grand statements” that are not supported by the data. Also, do not introduce any new results or terms. Moreover, do not ignore work that conflicts or disagrees with your findings. Instead …

Be brave! Address conflicting study results and convince the reader you are the one who is correct.

4.8 Conclusion

Your conclusion isn’t just a summary of what you’ve already written. It should take your paper one step further and answer any unresolved questions.

Sum up what you have shown in your study and indicate possible applications and extensions. The main question your conclusion should answer is: What do my results mean for the research field and my community?

4.9 Acknowledgments and Ethical Statements

It is extremely important to acknowledge anyone who has helped you with your paper, including researchers who supplied materials or reagents (e.g. vectors or antibodies); and anyone who helped with the writing or English, or offered critical comments about the content.

Learn more about academic integrity in our blog post “Scholarly Publication Ethics: 4 Common Mistakes You Want To Avoid” .

Remember to state why people have been acknowledged and ask their permission . Ensure that you acknowledge sources of funding, including any grant or reference numbers.

Furthermore, if you have worked with animals or humans, you need to include information about the ethical approval of your study and, if applicable, whether informed consent was given. Also, state whether you have any competing interests regarding the study (e.g. because of financial or personal relationships.)

4.10 References

The end is in sight, but don’t relax just yet!

De facto, there are often more mistakes in the references than in any other part of the manuscript. It is also one of the most annoying and time-consuming problems for editors.

Remember to cite the main scientific publications on which your work is based. But do not inflate the manuscript with too many references. Avoid excessive – and especially unnecessary – self-citations. Also, avoid excessive citations of publications from the same institute or region.

5. Decide the Order of Authors

In the sciences, the most common way to order the names of the authors is by relative contribution.

Generally, the first author conducts and/or supervises the data analysis and the proper presentation and interpretation of the results. They put the paper together and usually submit the paper to the journal.

Co-authors make intellectual contributions to the data analysis and contribute to data interpretation. They review each paper draft. All of them must be able to present the paper and its results, as well as to defend the implications and discuss study limitations.

Do not leave out authors who should be included or add “gift authors”, i.e. authors who did not contribute significantly.

6. Check and Double-Check

As a final step before submission, ask colleagues to read your work and be constructively critical .

Make sure that the paper is appropriate for the journal – take a last look at their aims and scope. Check if all of the requirements in the instructions for authors are met.

Ensure that the cited literature is balanced. Are the aims, purpose and significance of the results clear?

Conduct a final check for language, either by a native English speaker or an editing service.

7. Submit Your Paper

When you and your co-authors have double-, triple-, quadruple-checked the manuscript: submit it via e-mail or online submission system. Along with your manuscript, submit a cover letter, which highlights the reasons why your paper would appeal to the journal and which ensures that you have received approval of all authors for submission.

It is up to the editors and the peer-reviewers now to provide you with their (ideally constructive and helpful) comments and feedback. Time to take a breather!

If the paper gets rejected, do not despair – it happens to literally everybody. If the journal suggests major or minor revisions, take the chance to provide a thorough response and make improvements as you see fit. If the paper gets accepted, congrats!

It’s now time to get writing and share your hard work – good luck!

If you are interested, check out this related blog post

[Title Image by Nick Morrison via Unsplash]

David Sleeman

David Sleeman worked as Senior Journals Manager in the field of Physical Sciences at De Gruyter.

You might also be interested in

Academia & Publishing

Die Leipziger Buchmesse in der DDR: Ein Interview mit Patricia F. Blume

Wissenschaftspodcasts: ein blick hinter die kulissen mit nadine kreuzahler, how to get “networking” right as an academic, visit our shop.

De Gruyter publishes over 1,300 new book titles each year and more than 750 journals in the humanities, social sciences, medicine, mathematics, engineering, computer sciences, natural sciences, and law.

Pin It on Pinterest

SpringerLink shop

How to publish an article? – Step by step

If you plan to submit an article to one of our journals, or have any questions during the publication process, this helpdesk will guide you through manuscript submission, production and the services you can expect after your article’s publication.

1. Before you start

The following topics will be important during the early stages of writing your article.

Publishing Ethics
Open Access
Impact Factor
Rights, permissions and licensing
Copyright and plagiarism

2. Turning your manuscript into an article

Preparation, publication.

- Find the right journal for your manuscript

- The Springer Journal Selector

- Manuscript preparation (reference styles, artwork guidelines, etc.)

3. After publication

If your article has been published, the following topics are important for you:

Abstracting & Indexing
Online access to my article
Citation Alert
Book discounts
Marketing to worldwide audiences

An official website of the United States government

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

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

Publications
Account settings
Browse Titles

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2024 Jan-.

StatPearls [Internet].

How to write and publish a scientific manuscript.

Martin R. Huecker ; Jacob Shreffler .

Affiliations

Last Update: October 31, 2022 .

Definition/Introduction

A clinician should continuously strive to increase knowledge by reviewing and critiquing papers, thoughtfully considering how to integrate new data into practice. This is the essence of evidence-based medicine (EBM). [1] When new clinical queries arise, one should seek answers in the published literature. The ability to read a scientific or medical manuscript remains vitally important throughout the career of a clinician.

When gaps exist in the literature, clinicians should consider conducting their own research into these questions. Though typically performed by academic doctors or physician-scientists, medical research is open to all clinicians in both informal and formal methods. Anyone who treats patients can collect data on outcomes to assess the quality of care delivered (quality improvement is research). [2] Though beyond the scope of this chapter, instruction for clinicians on how to conduct research and contribute to medical science is provided by many resources. [3] [4] [5]

Additionally, a clinician who integrates a new practice can study effects on patient outcomes, retro- or prospectively. Continuous practice improvement need not be shared with the larger population of treating providers, but dissemination to the entire scientific community allows widespread adoption, criticism, or further testing for replication of findings.

Issues of Concern

Clinicians who seek to conduct retrospective chart reviews, prospective studies, or even randomized, controlled clinical trials should access the many resources to ensure quality methodology. [5] Once you have followed the appropriate steps to conduct a study (Table 1), you should complete the process by writing a manuscript to describe your findings and share it with other clinicians and researchers. Other resources detail the steps in undertaking writing a review article, but this StatPearls chapter will focus on Writing a Scientific Manuscript for original research. See also the StatPearls chapter for the different types of research manuscripts. [6]

Clinical Significance

Steps to Conducting Research

Develop a research question
Perform a literature search
Identify a gap in the literature
Design a study protocol (including personnel)
Submit to an institutional review board for approval
Collect, responsibly store, and then analyze data
Write a manuscript to interpret and describe your research.

After conducting a quality investigation or a study, one should put together an abstract and manuscript to share results. Researchers can write an abstract in a short amount of time, though the abstract will evolve as the full manuscript moves to completion. Many published and presented abstracts do not reach full manuscript publication. [7] [8] Although journals and conferences do often publish abstracts, studies with important results should be published in full manuscript form to ensure dissemination and allow attempts at replication. [9]

IRB protocols, study design, and data collection and aggregation require a team effort. Those involved in the research should discuss who will contribute to the full manuscript (i.e., qualify as an author) and thus the planned order of authorship to reduce complications at the time of manuscript submission. The author, who devotes the most effort to the paper, is typically the first and corresponding author. In contrast, the last author is often the most senior member of the team, often the principal investigator of the study. All individuals listed as authors should contribute to the manuscript and overall project in some fashion. [10]

The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklist is perhaps the most valuable tool in the process of preparing your manuscript for submission [11] .

Original research manuscripts have the following sections (in chronologic order): [11]

Title and Abstract

Introduction (Background and Objectives)

Methods (Design, Setting, Participants, Variables, Statistics)

Results (Participants, Descriptives, Outcomes, Subgroups)

Tables and Figures

Discussion (Key findings, Limitations, Interpretations)

Conflict of Interest (COI), Author affiliations, Acknowledgments, Funding

Individuals involved in the IRB submission (prior to data collection) can write the introduction and methods of the manuscript before and during the process of data collection and analysis. This head start on writing makes the full manuscript composition task less formidable. The content of the introduction and methods should be well known to the study group prior to data collection and analysis. The introduction should be organized into a “problem/gap/hook” order: what problem does this study address, the precise gap in the literature, and the objectives of this study (in addressing the gap). [12] The methods should provide enough detail such that readers who would like to replicate the study could do so.

Once data is collected and analyzed, authors can write an abstract to organize major themes of the research, understanding that the abstract will undergo edits once the manuscript is complete. Similarly, the title can change with revisions, as authors determine the most salient trends in the data. Most readers will only read the title +/- abstract. Thus these are the most important sections of the paper. The title should be concise and should directly describe the results of the trial– this correlates with more citations. The abstract must convey the crucial findings of the paper, ideally divided into sections for easier reading (unless the desired journal does not allow this). [13]

With the larger picture in mind, authors should create tables and figures that visually convey the themes of the data analysis. Working with statisticians or data experts, authors should devote a great deal of time to this component of the manuscript. Some general concepts: [14]

Only include tables/figures that you believe are necessary.
Make sure tables/figures are of high quality, simple, clear, with concise captions.
Do not repeat language in results that appear in tables/figures, i.e., the tables/figures should stand alone.
Consider how the figure will look in grayscale (in case the journal if not in color)

As with the abstract and title, the tables and figures will likely undergo further edits prior to the completion of the manuscript. The abstract and tables/figures should intuitively evolve together to convey the ‘story’ of the research project.

At this point, refer back to the introduction and methods composed during data collection. Make revisions as necessary to reflect the overall narrative of the project. Ensure you have adhered to the originally determined objectives or hypotheses.

Next, focus on the results and discussion. The results should contain only objective data with no interpretation of significance. Describe salient results than do not already receive explanations within the figures and tables. The discussion section begins with a lead paragraph highlighting the most important findings from the study. Then the discussion interprets the current results in light of prior published literature. Ensure citation of keystone papers on this topic, including new papers that have been published since embarking on the current project. Frame your results, describing how this study adds to the literature. The discussion section usually includes study limitations. Attempt to anticipate criticisms of the methodology, the results, the organization of the manuscript itself, and the (ability to draw) conclusions. A stronger limitations section preempts journal reviewer feedback, potentially simplifying the revision/resubmission process.

The conclusion section should be concise, conveying the main take-home points from your study. You can make recommendations for current clinical practice and for future research endeavors. Finally, consider using citation management software such as Endnote or Mendeley. Though initially cumbersome, these software platforms drastically improve revision efforts and allow for easy reference reformatting. All authors should review the manuscript multiple times, potentially sharing with other uninvolved colleagues for objective feedback. Consider who should receive acknowledgment for supporting the project and prepare to disclose conflicts of interest and funding.

Although authors should have an initial idea of which journal to submit to, once the manuscript is near completion, this decision will be more straightforward. Journal rankings are beyond the scope of this StatPearls chapter. Still, generally, one should devise a list of the journals within a specialty in order of highest to lowest impact factor (some sites categorize into tiers). High-quality prospective research and clinical trials have a higher likelihood of acceptance into the more prestigious journals within a specialty or to the high-quality general science or medicine journals. Although many journals have an option for open access publication, and numerous legitimate, open access journals now exist, beware of ‘predatory journals’ that charge a fee to publish and may not be indexed in Pubmed or other databases. [12]

Journals have diverse guidelines for formatting and submission, and the manuscript submission process can be tedious. Prior to submission, review Bordage’s paper on reasons for manuscript rejection. [15] Most journals require a title page and cover letter, the latter of which represents an opportunity to lobby for your paper’s importance. When (not if) you experience manuscript rejections, take reviewer comments and recommendations seriously. Use this valuable feedback for resubmission to the original journal (when invited) or for subsequent submission to other journals. When submitting a requested revision, compose a point by point response to the reviewers and attach a new manuscript with tracked changes. Attempt to resubmit manuscripts as promptly as possible, keeping your work in the hands of journals (allowing you to work on other research). [14]

Nursing, Allied Health, and Interprofessional Team Interventions

The above logistic steps will differ for review articles, case reports, editorials, and other types of submissions. [16] However, the organization, precise methods, and adherence to journal guidelines remain important. See work by Provenzale on principles to increase the likelihood of acceptance for original and revised manuscripts. After submission, revision, resubmission, and proofing, you may experience the fulfillment of an official publication. Academics should promote their scientific work, enhancing the dissemination of research to the wider scientific community. [17] [18] [17] [19]

Review Questions
Access free multiple choice questions on this topic.
Comment on this article.

Disclosure: Martin Huecker declares no relevant financial relationships with ineligible companies.

Disclosure: Jacob Shreffler declares no relevant financial relationships with ineligible companies.

This book is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ ), which permits others to distribute the work, provided that the article is not altered or used commercially. You are not required to obtain permission to distribute this article, provided that you credit the author and journal.

Cite this Page Huecker MR, Shreffler J. How To Write And Publish A Scientific Manuscript. [Updated 2022 Oct 31]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2024 Jan-.

In this Page

Bulk download.

Bulk download StatPearls data from FTP

Related information

PMC PubMed Central citations
PubMed Links to PubMed

Recent Activity

How To Write And Publish A Scientific Manuscript - StatPearls How To Write And Publish A Scientific Manuscript - StatPearls

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

How to Publish a Research Paper: A Complete Guide
Self Publishing Guide

How to Publish a Research Paper: A Complete Guide

Publishing a research paper in a reputable journal is a significant achievement for any academic researcher. It not only showcases your expertise in a particular field but also contributes valuable insights to the scientific community. However, the process of publication can be daunting, especially for early-career researchers. In this comprehensive guide, we will walk you through the essential steps on how to publish a research paper successfully. From selecting the right journal to addressing reviewer feedback, we have you covered!

Read: Learn How to Write & Craft a Compelling Villain for Your Story.

Here’s a list of steps to keep in mind before publishing a research paper :

Step 1: Identifying the Right Journal
Step 2: Preparing Step 3: Your Manuscript

Step 3: Conducting a Thorough Review

Step 4: Writing a Compelling Cover Letter

Step 5: Navigating the Peer Review Process

Step 6: Handling Rejections

Step 7: Preparing for Publication

Step 8: Promoting Your Published Paper

Step 1: Identifying the Right Journal

The first step in publishing a research paper is crucial, as it sets the foundation for the entire publication process. Identifying the right journal involves carefully selecting a publication platform that aligns with your research topic, audience, and academic goals. Here are the key considerations to keep in mind during this step:

Scope and Focus : Assess the scope and focus of your research to find journals that publish articles in your field of study. Look for journals that have previously published papers related to your topic or research area.
Readership and Impact Factor : Consider the target audience of the journal and its readership. Higher-impact factor journals typically attract a broader readership and can enhance the visibility and credibility of your research.
Publication Frequency : Investigate the publication frequency of the journal. Some journals publish issues monthly, quarterly, or annually. Choose a journal that aligns with your timeline for publication.
Indexing and Reputation : Check if the journal is indexed in reputable databases, such as Scopus or PubMed. Indexed journals are more likely to be recognized and accessed by researchers worldwide.
Journal Guidelines : Familiarise yourself with the journal’s submission guidelines, available on their website. Pay attention to manuscript length limits, reference styles, and formatting requirements.
Open Access Options : Consider whether the journal offers open access publishing. Open-access journals allow unrestricted access to your paper, potentially increasing its visibility and impact.
Ethical Considerations : Ensure the journal follows ethical publication practises and abides by industry standards. Verify if the journal is a member of reputable publishing organisations, such as COPE (the Committee on Publication Ethics).
Publication Fees : Check if the journal charges any publication fees or article processing charges (APCs). These fees can vary significantly among journals and may influence your decision.
Target Audience : Consider the journal’s target audience and the level of technical detail appropriate for that audience. Some journals cater to a more specialised readership, while others aim for a broader appeal.
Journal Reputation : Research the reputation of the journal within your academic community. Seek advice from colleagues or mentors who have published in similar journals.

By carefully considering these factors, you can make an informed decision on the most suitable journal for your research paper. Selecting the right journal increases your chances of acceptance and ensures that your work reaches the intended audience, contributing to the advancement of knowledge in your field.

Step 2: Preparing Your Manuscript

After identifying the appropriate journal, the next step is to prepare your manuscript for submission. This stage involves meticulous attention to detail and adherence to the journal’s specific author guidelines. Here’s a comprehensive guide to preparing your manuscript:

Read Author Guidelines : Carefully read and understand the journal’s author guidelines, which are available on the journal’s website. The guidelines provide instructions on manuscript preparation, the submission process, and formatting requirements.
Manuscript Structure : Follow the standard structure for a research paper, including the abstract, introduction, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion sections. Ensure that each section is clear and well-organised.
Title and Abstract : Craft a concise and informative title that reflects the main focus of your research. The abstract should provide a summary of your study’s objectives, methods, results, and conclusions.
Introduction : The introduction should introduce the research problem, provide context, and state the research objectives or questions. Engage readers by highlighting the significance of your research.
Methodology : Describe the research design, data collection methods, and data analysis techniques used in your study. Provide sufficient detail to enable other researchers to replicate your study.
Results : Present your findings in a clear and logical manner. Use tables, graphs, and figures to enhance the presentation of data. Avoid interpreting the results in this section.
Discussion : Analyse and interpret your results in the discussion section. Relate your findings to the research objectives and previously published literature. Discuss the implications of your results and any limitations of your study.
Conclusion : In the conclusion, summarise the key findings of your research and restate their significance. Avoid introducing new information in this section.
Citations and References : Cite all sources accurately and consistently throughout the manuscript. Follow the journal’s preferred citation style, such as APA, MLA, or Chicago.
Proofreading and Editing : Thoroughly proofread your manuscript to correct any grammatical errors, typos, or inconsistencies. Edit for clarity, conciseness, and logical flow.
Figures and Tables : Ensure that all figures and tables are clear, properly labelled, and cited in the main text. Follow the journal’s guidelines for the formatting of figures and tables.
Ethical Considerations : Include any necessary statements regarding ethical approval, conflicts of interest, or data availability, as required by the journal.

By meticulously preparing your manuscript and adhering to the journal’s guidelines, you increase the likelihood of a successful submission. A well-structured and polished manuscript enhances the readability and impact of your research, ultimately increasing your chances of acceptance for publication.

The process of conducting a thorough review of your research paper is a critical step in the publication journey. This step ensures that your work is polished, accurate, and ready for submission to a journal. A well-reviewed paper increases the chances of acceptance and demonstrates your commitment to producing high-quality research. Here are the key aspects to consider during the review process:

Grammatical Errors and Typos : Start by carefully proofreading your paper for any grammatical errors, typos, or spelling mistakes. Even minor errors can undermine the credibility of your research and distract readers from your main points. Use grammar-checking tools, but also read your paper line by line to catch any issues that zated tools might miss.
Consistency and Clarity : Ensure that your writing is consistent throughout the paper. Check that you have used the same terminology, abbreviations, and formatting consistently. Additionally, pay attention to sentence structure and coherence, making sure that each paragraph flows logically into the next.
Accuracy of Data, Graphs, and Tables : Review all the data presented in your research, including figures, graphs, and tables. Verify that the data is accurate, correctly labelled, and represented in a clear and understandable manner. Any errors in data representation can lead to misinterpretations and undermine the reliability of your findings.
Citation and Referencing : Verify that all the sources you have cited are accurate and properly formatted according to the citation style required by the target journal. Missing or incorrect citations can lead to accusations of plagiarism and harm the integrity of your work.
Addressing Feedback : If you have received feedback from colleagues, mentors, or peer reviewers during the pre-submission process, carefully consider their suggestions and address any concerns raised. Engaging with feedback shows your willingness to improve and strengthen your paper.
Objective Evaluation : Try to read your paper with a critical eye, as if you were a reviewer assessing its merits. Identify any weaknesses or areas that could be improved, both in terms of content and presentation. Be open to rewriting or restructuring sections that could benefit from further clarity or depth.
Seek Feedback : To ensure the highest quality, seek feedback from colleagues or mentors who are knowledgeable in your research field. They can provide valuable insights and offer suggestions for improvement. Peer review can identify blind spots and help you refine your arguments.
Formatting and Guidelines : Review the journal’s specific formatting and submission guidelines. Adhering to these requirements demonstrates your attention to detail and increases the likelihood of acceptance.

In conclusion, conducting a thorough review of your research paper is an essential step before submission. It involves checking for grammatical errors, ensuring clarity and consistency, verifying data accuracy, addressing feedback, and seeking external input. A well-reviewed paper enhances its chances of publication and contributes to the overall credibility of your research.

The cover letter is your opportunity to make a strong first impression on the journal’s editor and to persuade them that your research paper is a valuable contribution to their publication. It serves as a bridge between your work and the editor, highlighting the significance and originality of your study and explaining why it is a good fit for the journal. Here are the key elements to include in a compelling cover letter:

Introduction : Start the letter with a professional and cordial greeting, addressing the editor by their name if possible. Introduce yourself and provide your affiliation, including your academic title and institution. Mention the title of your research paper and its co-authors, if any.
Brief Summary of Research : Provide a concise and compelling summary of your research. Clearly state the research question or problem you addressed, the methodology you employed, and your main findings. Emphasise the significance of your research and its potential impact on the field.
Highlight Originality : Explain what sets your study apart from existing research in the field. Highlight the original contributions your paper makes, whether it’s a novel approach, new insights, or addressing a gap in the literature. Demonstrating the novelty of your work will capture the editor’s attention.
Fit with the Journal : Explain why your research is a good fit for the target journal. Refer to recent articles published in the journal that are related to your topic and discuss how your research complements or extends those works. Aligning your paper with the journal’s scope and objectives enhances your chances of acceptance.
Addressing Specific Points : If the journal’s author guidelines include specific requirements, address them in your cover letter. This shows that you have read and followed their guidelines carefully. For example, if the journal requires you to highlight the practical implications of your research, briefly mention these in your letter.
Previous Engagement : If you have presented your research at a conference, workshop, or seminar, or if it has been previously reviewed (e.g., as a preprint), mention it in the cover letter. This indicates that your work has already undergone some scrutiny and may strengthen its appeal to the journal.
Declaration of Originality : State that the paper is original, has not been published elsewhere, and is not under simultaneous consideration by any other publication. This declaration reassures the editor that your work meets the journal’s submission policies.
Contact Information : Provide your contact details, including email and phone number, and express your willingness to address any queries or provide additional information if needed.
Expression of Gratitude : Thank the editor for their time and consideration in reviewing your submission.

In conclusion, a well-crafted cover letter complements your research paper and convinces the journal’s editor of the significance and originality of your work. It should provide a succinct overview of your research, highlight its relevance to the journal’s scope, and address any specific points raised in the author guidelines. A compelling cover letter increases the likelihood of your paper being seriously considered for publication.

The peer review process is a crucial step in scholarly publishing, designed to ensure the quality, accuracy, and validity of research papers before they are accepted for publication. After you submit your manuscript to a journal, it is sent to peer reviewers who are experts in your field. These reviewers carefully assess your work, providing feedback and recommendations to the editor. Navigating the peer review process requires patience, open-mindedness, and a willingness to engage constructively with reviewers. Here’s a detailed explanation of this step:

Submission and Assignment : Once you submit your paper, the journal’s editorial team performs an initial screening to check if it aligns with the journal’s scope and guidelines. If it does, the editor assigns peer reviewers who have expertise in the subject matter of your research.
Reviewing Process : The peer reviewers evaluate your paper’s methodology, data analysis, conclusions, and overall contribution to the field. They may assess the clarity of your writing, the strength of your arguments, and the relevance of your findings. Reviewers also look for potential flaws or limitations in your study.
Reviewer Feedback : After the reviewers have thoroughly examined your paper, they provide feedback to the editor. The feedback usually falls into three categories: acceptance, revision, or rejection. In the case of a revision, reviewers may specify the changes they believe are necessary for the paper to meet the journal’s standards.
Editor’s Decision : Based on the reviewers’ feedback, the editor makes a decision about your paper. The decision could be acceptance, conditional acceptance pending minor revisions, major revisions, or rejection. Even if your paper is rejected, remember that the peer review process provides valuable feedback that can help improve your research.
Responding to Reviewer Comments : If your paper requires revisions, carefully read the reviewer comments and suggestions. Address each comment in a respectful and diligent manner, providing clear responses and incorporating the necessary changes into your manuscript.
Revised Manuscript Submission : Submit the revised version of your paper along with a detailed response to the reviewers’ comments. Explain the changes you made and how you addressed their concerns. This demonstrates your commitment to enhancing the quality of your research.
Reiteration of the Review Process : Depending on the revisions, the editor may send your paper back to the same reviewers or to new reviewers for a second round of evaluation. This process continues until the paper is either accepted for publication or deemed unsuitable for the journal.
Acceptance and Publication : If your paper successfully navigates the peer review process and meets the journal’s standards, it will be accepted for publication. Congratulations on reaching this milestone!

In conclusion, the peer review process is an essential part of academic publishing. It involves expert evaluation of your research by peers in the field, who provide valuable feedback to improve the quality and rigour of your paper. Embrace the feedback with an open mind, respond diligently to reviewer comments, and be patient during the review process. Navigating peer review is a collaborative effort to ensure that only high-quality and significant research contributes to the scholarly community.

Receiving a rejection of your research paper can be disheartening, but it is a common and normal part of the publication process. It’s important to remember that rejection does not necessarily reflect the quality of your work; many groundbreaking studies have faced rejection before finding the right publication platform. Handling rejections requires resilience, a growth mindset, and the willingness to learn from the feedback. Here’s a comprehensive explanation of this step:

Understanding the Decision : When you receive a rejection, take the time to carefully read the editor’s decision letter and the feedback provided by the peer reviewers. Understand the reasons for the rejection and the specific concerns raised about your paper.
Embrace Constructive Feedback : Peer reviewer comments can provide valuable insights into the strengths and weaknesses of your research. Embrace the feedback constructively, recognising that it presents an opportunity to improve your work.
Assessing Revisions : If the decision letter includes suggestions for revisions, carefully consider whether you agree with them. Evaluate if implementing these revisions aligns with your research goals and the core message of your paper.
Revising the Manuscript : If you decide to make revisions based on the feedback, thoroughly address the reviewer’s comments and consider making any necessary improvements to your research. Pay close attention to the areas identified by the reviewers as needing improvement.
Resubmission or Alternative Journals : After revising your manuscript, you have the option to either resubmit it to the same journal (if allowed) or consider submitting it to a different journal. If you choose the latter, ensure that the new journal aligns with your research topic and scope.
Tailoring the Submission : When submitting to a different journal, tailor your manuscript and cover letter to fit the specific requirements and preferences of that journal. Highlight the relevance of your research to the journal’s readership and address any unique guidelines they have.
Don’t Lose Hope : Rejections are a natural part of the publication process, and many researchers face them at some point in their careers. It is essential not to lose hope and to remain persistent in pursuing publication opportunities.
Learn and Improve : Use the feedback from the rejection as a learning experience. Identify areas for improvement in your research, writing, and presentation. This will help you grow as a researcher and improve your chances of acceptance in the future.
Seek Support and Guidance : If you are struggling to navigate the publication process or interpret reviewer comments, seek support from colleagues, mentors, or academic advisors. Their insights can provide valuable guidance and encouragement.

In conclusion, handling rejections is a normal part of the publication journey. Approach rejection with a growth mindset, embracing the feedback provided by reviewers as an opportunity to improve your research. Revise your manuscript diligently, and consider submitting it to other journals that align with your research. Remember that persistence, learning from feedback, and seeking support are key to achieving success in the scholarly publishing process.

After successfully navigating the peer review process and receiving acceptance for your research paper, you are one step closer to seeing your work published in a reputable journal. However, before your paper can be published, you need to prepare it for production according to the journal’s specific requirements. This step is essential to ensuring that your paper meets the journal’s formatting and style guidelines and is ready for dissemination to the academic community. Here’s a comprehensive explanation of this step:

Reviewing the Acceptance Letter : Start by carefully reviewing the acceptance letter from the journal’s editor. This letter will outline any final comments or suggestions from the reviewers that need to be addressed before publication.
Addressing Reviewer Comments : If there are any outstanding revisions or clarifications requested by the reviewers, address them promptly and thoroughly. Reviewer feedback plays a crucial role in enhancing the quality and clarity of your paper, so it’s essential to give each comment due attention.
Adhering to Journal Guidelines : Familiarise yourself with the journal’s production requirements and guidelines for formatting, referencing, and figure preparation. Ensure that your paper adheres to these guidelines to avoid delays in the publication process.
Finalising the Manuscript : Once all revisions have been made and the paper aligns with the journal’s requirements, finalise your manuscript. Carefully proofread the entire paper to catch any remaining grammatical errors or typos.
Handling Permissions and Copyright : If your paper includes copyrighted material (e.g., figures, tables, or excerpts from other publications), obtain permission from the original copyright holders to reproduce that content in your paper. This is crucial to avoid potential copyright infringement issues.
Completing Authorship and Affiliation Details : Verify that all authors’ names, affiliations, and contact information are accurate and consistent. Ensure that the corresponding author is clearly identified for communication with the journal during the publication process.
Submitting the Final Manuscript : Follow the journal’s instructions to submit the final version of your manuscript along with any required supplementary materials. This may include high-resolution figures, data sets, or additional supporting information.
Waiting for Publication : After submitting the final version, the journal’s production team will work on typesetting, formatting, and preparing your paper for publication. This process may take some time, depending on the journal’s workflow and schedule.
Proofing and Corrections : Once the typeset proof is ready, carefully review it for any formatting errors or typographical mistakes. Respond to the journal promptly with any necessary corrections or clarifications.
Copyright Transfer : If required by the journal, complete the copyright transfer agreement, granting the publisher the right to publish and distribute your work.
Publication Date and DOI : Your paper will be assigned a publication date and a Digital Object Identifier (DOI), a unique alphanumeric string that provides a permanent link to your paper, making it easily accessible and citable.

In conclusion, preparing your research paper for publication involves carefully addressing reviewer comments, adhering to journal guidelines, handling permissions and copyright issues, and submitting the final version for production. Thoroughly reviewing and finalising your paper will ensure its readiness for dissemination to the academic community.

Congratulations on successfully publishing your research paper! Now, it’s time to promote your work to reach a broader audience and increase its visibility within the academic and research communities. Effective promotion can lead to more citations, recognition, and potential collaborations. Here’s a comprehensive explanation of this step:

Share on Social Media : Utilise social media platforms to announce the publication of your paper. Share the title, abstract, and a link to the paper on your professional profiles, such as LinkedIn , Twitter , or ResearchGate . Engage with your followers to generate interest and discussion.
Collaborate with Colleagues : Collaborate with your co-authors and colleagues to promote the paper collectively. Encourage them to share the publication on their social media and academic networks. A collaborative effort can increase the paper’s visibility and reach.
Academic Networks and Research Platforms : Upload your paper to academic networks and research platforms like Academia.edu, Mendeley, or Google Scholar. This allows other researchers to discover and cite your work more easily.
Email and Newsletters : Inform your professional contacts and research network about the publication through email announcements or newsletters. Consider writing a brief summary of your paper’s key findings and significance to entice readers to access the full paper.
Research Blog or Website : If you have a personal research blog or website, create a dedicated post announcing the publication. Provide a summary of your research and its implications in a reader-friendly format.
Engage with the Academic Community : Participate in academic conferences, workshops, and seminars to present your research. Networking with other researchers and sharing your findings in person can create buzz around your paper.
Press Releases : If your research has practical implications or societal relevance, consider working with your institution’s press office to issue a press release about your paper. This can attract media attention and increase public awareness.
Academic and Research Forums : Engage in online academic and research forums to discuss your findings and share insights. Be active in relevant discussions to establish yourself as an expert in your field.
Researcher Profiles : Keep your researcher profiles, such as those on Google Scholar, ORCID, and Scopus, updated with your latest publications. This ensures that your paper is indexed and visible to other researchers searching for related work.
Altmetrics : Monitor the altmetrics of your paper to track its online attention, including mentions, downloads, and social media shares. Altmetrics provide additional metrics beyond traditional citations, giving you insights into your paper’s broader impact.
Engage with Feedback : Respond to comments and questions from readers who engage with your paper. Engaging in scholarly discussions can further promote your work and demonstrate your expertise in the field.

In conclusion, promoting your published paper is an essential step to increasing its visibility, impact, and potential for further collaboration. Utilise social media, academic networks, collaborations with colleagues, and engagement with the academic community to create interest in your work. Effective promotion can lead to more citations and recognition, enhancing the overall impact of your research.

Read: Here’s a list of 10 best short story books to read in 2023 that you can’t miss.

Publishing a research paper is a rewarding experience that requires dedication, perseverance, and attention to detail. By following this essential guide, you can navigate the publication process successfully and contribute valuable knowledge to your field of study.

Remember, each publication is a stepping stone in your academic journey, and even rejections provide opportunities for growth. Embrace the process, continue refining your research, and celebrate your contributions to advancing scientific knowledge. Good luck on your journey to academic success!

Publish your book with BlueRoseONE and become a bestselling author . Don’t let your dream of becoming an author fade away, grab the opportunity now and publish your book – be it fiction, non fiction, poetry or more.

Happy writing and publishing!

About The Author
Latest Posts

Manan Sahni

List of 10 Book Binding methods that you must know

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

Knowledge Base
Research paper

How to Write a Research Paper | A Beginner's Guide

A research paper is a piece of academic writing that provides analysis, interpretation, and argument based on in-depth independent research.

Research papers are similar to academic essays , but they are usually longer and more detailed assignments, designed to assess not only your writing skills but also your skills in scholarly research. Writing a research paper requires you to demonstrate a strong knowledge of your topic, engage with a variety of sources, and make an original contribution to the debate.

This step-by-step guide takes you through the entire writing process, from understanding your assignment to proofreading your final draft.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Understand the assignment, choose a research paper topic, conduct preliminary research, develop a thesis statement, create a research paper outline, write a first draft of the research paper, write the introduction, write a compelling body of text, write the conclusion, the second draft, the revision process, research paper checklist, free lecture slides.

Completing a research paper successfully means accomplishing the specific tasks set out for you. Before you start, make sure you thoroughly understanding the assignment task sheet:

Read it carefully, looking for anything confusing you might need to clarify with your professor.
Identify the assignment goal, deadline, length specifications, formatting, and submission method.
Make a bulleted list of the key points, then go back and cross completed items off as you’re writing.

Carefully consider your timeframe and word limit: be realistic, and plan enough time to research, write, and edit.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

There are many ways to generate an idea for a research paper, from brainstorming with pen and paper to talking it through with a fellow student or professor.

You can try free writing, which involves taking a broad topic and writing continuously for two or three minutes to identify absolutely anything relevant that could be interesting.

You can also gain inspiration from other research. The discussion or recommendations sections of research papers often include ideas for other specific topics that require further examination.

Once you have a broad subject area, narrow it down to choose a topic that interests you, m eets the criteria of your assignment, and i s possible to research. Aim for ideas that are both original and specific:

A paper following the chronology of World War II would not be original or specific enough.
A paper on the experience of Danish citizens living close to the German border during World War II would be specific and could be original enough.

Note any discussions that seem important to the topic, and try to find an issue that you can focus your paper around. Use a variety of sources , including journals, books, and reliable websites, to ensure you do not miss anything glaring.

Do not only verify the ideas you have in mind, but look for sources that contradict your point of view.

Is there anything people seem to overlook in the sources you research?
Are there any heated debates you can address?
Do you have a unique take on your topic?
Have there been some recent developments that build on the extant research?

In this stage, you might find it helpful to formulate some research questions to help guide you. To write research questions, try to finish the following sentence: “I want to know how/what/why…”

A thesis statement is a statement of your central argument — it establishes the purpose and position of your paper. If you started with a research question, the thesis statement should answer it. It should also show what evidence and reasoning you’ll use to support that answer.

The thesis statement should be concise, contentious, and coherent. That means it should briefly summarize your argument in a sentence or two, make a claim that requires further evidence or analysis, and make a coherent point that relates to every part of the paper.

You will probably revise and refine the thesis statement as you do more research, but it can serve as a guide throughout the writing process. Every paragraph should aim to support and develop this central claim.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

A research paper outline is essentially a list of the key topics, arguments, and evidence you want to include, divided into sections with headings so that you know roughly what the paper will look like before you start writing.

A structure outline can help make the writing process much more efficient, so it’s worth dedicating some time to create one.

Your first draft won’t be perfect — you can polish later on. Your priorities at this stage are as follows:

Maintaining forward momentum — write now, perfect later.
Paying attention to clear organization and logical ordering of paragraphs and sentences, which will help when you come to the second draft.
Expressing your ideas as clearly as possible, so you know what you were trying to say when you come back to the text.

You do not need to start by writing the introduction. Begin where it feels most natural for you — some prefer to finish the most difficult sections first, while others choose to start with the easiest part. If you created an outline, use it as a map while you work.

Do not delete large sections of text. If you begin to dislike something you have written or find it doesn’t quite fit, move it to a different document, but don’t lose it completely — you never know if it might come in useful later.

Paragraph structure

Paragraphs are the basic building blocks of research papers. Each one should focus on a single claim or idea that helps to establish the overall argument or purpose of the paper.

Example paragraph

George Orwell’s 1946 essay “Politics and the English Language” has had an enduring impact on thought about the relationship between politics and language. This impact is particularly obvious in light of the various critical review articles that have recently referenced the essay. For example, consider Mark Falcoff’s 2009 article in The National Review Online, “The Perversion of Language; or, Orwell Revisited,” in which he analyzes several common words (“activist,” “civil-rights leader,” “diversity,” and more). Falcoff’s close analysis of the ambiguity built into political language intentionally mirrors Orwell’s own point-by-point analysis of the political language of his day. Even 63 years after its publication, Orwell’s essay is emulated by contemporary thinkers.

Citing sources

It’s also important to keep track of citations at this stage to avoid accidental plagiarism . Each time you use a source, make sure to take note of where the information came from.

You can use our free citation generators to automatically create citations and save your reference list as you go.

APA Citation Generator MLA Citation Generator

The research paper introduction should address three questions: What, why, and how? After finishing the introduction, the reader should know what the paper is about, why it is worth reading, and how you’ll build your arguments.

What? Be specific about the topic of the paper, introduce the background, and define key terms or concepts.

Why? This is the most important, but also the most difficult, part of the introduction. Try to provide brief answers to the following questions: What new material or insight are you offering? What important issues does your essay help define or answer?

How? To let the reader know what to expect from the rest of the paper, the introduction should include a “map” of what will be discussed, briefly presenting the key elements of the paper in chronological order.

The major struggle faced by most writers is how to organize the information presented in the paper, which is one reason an outline is so useful. However, remember that the outline is only a guide and, when writing, you can be flexible with the order in which the information and arguments are presented.

One way to stay on track is to use your thesis statement and topic sentences . Check:

topic sentences against the thesis statement;
topic sentences against each other, for similarities and logical ordering;
and each sentence against the topic sentence of that paragraph.

Be aware of paragraphs that seem to cover the same things. If two paragraphs discuss something similar, they must approach that topic in different ways. Aim to create smooth transitions between sentences, paragraphs, and sections.

The research paper conclusion is designed to help your reader out of the paper’s argument, giving them a sense of finality.

Trace the course of the paper, emphasizing how it all comes together to prove your thesis statement. Give the paper a sense of finality by making sure the reader understands how you’ve settled the issues raised in the introduction.

You might also discuss the more general consequences of the argument, outline what the paper offers to future students of the topic, and suggest any questions the paper’s argument raises but cannot or does not try to answer.

You should not :

Offer new arguments or essential information
Take up any more space than necessary
Begin with stock phrases that signal you are ending the paper (e.g. “In conclusion”)

There are four main considerations when it comes to the second draft.

Check how your vision of the paper lines up with the first draft and, more importantly, that your paper still answers the assignment.
Identify any assumptions that might require (more substantial) justification, keeping your reader’s perspective foremost in mind. Remove these points if you cannot substantiate them further.
Be open to rearranging your ideas. Check whether any sections feel out of place and whether your ideas could be better organized.
If you find that old ideas do not fit as well as you anticipated, you should cut them out or condense them. You might also find that new and well-suited ideas occurred to you during the writing of the first draft — now is the time to make them part of the paper.

The goal during the revision and proofreading process is to ensure you have completed all the necessary tasks and that the paper is as well-articulated as possible. You can speed up the proofreading process by using the AI proofreader .

Global concerns

Confirm that your paper completes every task specified in your assignment sheet.
Check for logical organization and flow of paragraphs.
Check paragraphs against the introduction and thesis statement.

Fine-grained details

Check the content of each paragraph, making sure that:

each sentence helps support the topic sentence.
no unnecessary or irrelevant information is present.
all technical terms your audience might not know are identified.

Next, think about sentence structure , grammatical errors, and formatting . Check that you have correctly used transition words and phrases to show the connections between your ideas. Look for typos, cut unnecessary words, and check for consistency in aspects such as heading formatting and spellings .

Finally, you need to make sure your paper is correctly formatted according to the rules of the citation style you are using. For example, you might need to include an MLA heading or create an APA title page .

Scribbr’s professional editors can help with the revision process with our award-winning proofreading services.

Discover our paper editing service

Checklist: Research paper

I have followed all instructions in the assignment sheet.

My introduction presents my topic in an engaging way and provides necessary background information.

My introduction presents a clear, focused research problem and/or thesis statement .

My paper is logically organized using paragraphs and (if relevant) section headings .

Each paragraph is clearly focused on one central idea, expressed in a clear topic sentence .

Each paragraph is relevant to my research problem or thesis statement.

I have used appropriate transitions to clarify the connections between sections, paragraphs, and sentences.

My conclusion provides a concise answer to the research question or emphasizes how the thesis has been supported.

My conclusion shows how my research has contributed to knowledge or understanding of my topic.

My conclusion does not present any new points or information essential to my argument.

I have provided an in-text citation every time I refer to ideas or information from a source.

I have included a reference list at the end of my paper, consistently formatted according to a specific citation style .

I have thoroughly revised my paper and addressed any feedback from my professor or supervisor.

I have followed all formatting guidelines (page numbers, headers, spacing, etc.).

You've written a great paper. Make sure it's perfect with the help of a Scribbr editor!

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

Is this article helpful?

Other students also liked.

Writing a Research Paper Introduction | Step-by-Step Guide
Writing a Research Paper Conclusion | Step-by-Step Guide
Research Paper Format | APA, MLA, & Chicago Templates

"I thought AI Proofreading was useless but.."

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

UGC Approved Journals
Editorial Board Member
Reviewer Home

Welcome to Research Publish Journals, Please submit your paper at [email protected]

International Journal of Thesis Projects and Dissertations

Issn 2348-3164 (online); 2348-3156 (print), international journal of social science and humanities research, issn 2348-5736 (online), international journal of mathematics and physical sciences research, issn 2348-7593 (online), international journal of mechanical and industrial technology, issn 2348-7585 (online), international journal of management and commerce innovations, issn 2348-3148 (o); 2348-313x (p), international journal of life sciences research, issn 2348-1226 (o); 2348-1218 (p), international journal of interdisciplinary research and innovations, issn 2348-5728 (online), international journal of healthcare sciences, issn 2348 - 697x (online), international journal of engineering research and reviews, issn 2348 - 6988 (online), international journal of electrical and electronics research, issn 2348-120x (online); 2348-1196 (print), international journal of computer science and information technology research, issn 2348-7607 (online), international journal of civil and structural engineering research.

Multidisciplinary researches and articles of Science, Medical Science, Technology, Engineering, Management, Life Sciences, Medicine, Pharmacy, Veterinary, Journalism, Media Studies, Education, Mathematics, Marketing, Human Resource, Finance, Commerce, Business Studies, Social Sciences, Economics, Humanities, Library Science and many more are published here. Also, conference proceedings, thesis, projects and dissertations of the entire defined fields are published here.

Our prestigious editorial and advisory board consist of members of well known Institutions, laboratories, Universities, Government Organisations of countries like America, China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Germany, Malaysia, New Zealand, United Kingdom, Africa, India and many more around the Globe. We strive to become a top notch provider of knowledge and information to the subject related people. Utmost care is taken for quick review and allied formalities for all submitted papers while maintaining the greatest precision of their contents. We endeavour to fast track the reviews and processing procedure to compress the time between Submission, and Acceptance of Manuscript in our journal.

Our all Research Publications are Open Access for widest dissemination of scientific knowledge base, inventions and discoveries collected by our publication through our prestigious authors throughout the world without any Economic and legal obstructions. We try our best to spread inventive and valuable information published in our journals to well known international libraries, international institutions, research and development organisations. Our International Publications house always tries to achieve pinnacle in the field of science journal, by publication of original, inventive and interesting findings in our concerned international journals. Our vision is to provide free published paper to each and every nation for improvement in education quality, and therefore it cause improvement in lifestyle of people.

Call For Papers April 2022

Research Publish Journals… [....]

Quality Report Of Journals

More than 14100 plus papers Published, Complete… [....]

Indexing List 2022

Papers published by Research Publish Journals are also available at Multiple indexing… [....]

Download Copyright Form
Download Paper Template

Help | Advanced Search

Computer Science > Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

Title: mm1: methods, analysis & insights from multimodal llm pre-training.

Abstract: In this work, we discuss building performant Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs). In particular, we study the importance of various architecture components and data choices. Through careful and comprehensive ablations of the image encoder, the vision language connector, and various pre-training data choices, we identified several crucial design lessons. For example, we demonstrate that for large-scale multimodal pre-training using a careful mix of image-caption, interleaved image-text, and text-only data is crucial for achieving state-of-the-art (SOTA) few-shot results across multiple benchmarks, compared to other published pre-training results. Further, we show that the image encoder together with image resolution and the image token count has substantial impact, while the vision-language connector design is of comparatively negligible importance. By scaling up the presented recipe, we build MM1, a family of multimodal models up to 30B parameters, including both dense models and mixture-of-experts (MoE) variants, that are SOTA in pre-training metrics and achieve competitive performance after supervised fine-tuning on a range of established multimodal benchmarks. Thanks to large-scale pre-training, MM1 enjoys appealing properties such as enhanced in-context learning, and multi-image reasoning, enabling few-shot chain-of-thought prompting.

Submission history

Access paper:.

Download PDF
Other Formats

References & Citations

Google Scholar
Semantic Scholar

BibTeX formatted citation

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Code, data and media associated with this article, recommenders and search tools.

Institution

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs .

This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

Published on 18.3.2024 in Vol 10 (2024)

Predicting COVID-19 Vaccination Uptake Using a Small and Interpretable Set of Judgment and Demographic Variables: Cross-Sectional Cognitive Science Study

Authors of this article:

Original Paper

Nicole L Vike 1 , PhD ;
Sumra Bari 1 , PhD ;
Leandros Stefanopoulos 2, 3 * , MSc ;
Shamal Lalvani 2 * , MSc ;
Byoung Woo Kim 1 * , MSc ;
Nicos Maglaveras 3 , PhD ;
Martin Block 4 , PhD ;
Hans C Breiter 1, 5 , MD ;
Aggelos K Katsaggelos 2, 6, 7 , PhD

1 Department of Computer Science, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, United States

2 Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, United States

3 School of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece

4 Integrated Marketing Communications, Medill School, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, United States

5 Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard School of Medicine, Boston, MA, United States

6 Department of Computer Science, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, United States

7 Department of Radiology, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, United States

*these authors contributed equally

Corresponding Author:

Hans C Breiter, MD

Department of Computer Science

University of Cincinnati

2901 Woodside Drive

Cincinnati, OH, 45219

United States

Phone: 1 617 413 0953

Email: [email protected]

Background: Despite COVID-19 vaccine mandates, many chose to forgo vaccination, raising questions about the psychology underlying how judgment affects these choices. Research shows that reward and aversion judgments are important for vaccination choice; however, no studies have integrated such cognitive science with machine learning to predict COVID-19 vaccine uptake .

Objective: This study aims to determine the predictive power of a small but interpretable set of judgment variables using 3 machine learning algorithms to predict COVID-19 vaccine uptake and interpret what profile of judgment variables was important for prediction.

Methods: We surveyed 3476 adults across the United States in December 2021. Participants answered demographic, COVID-19 vaccine uptake (ie, whether participants were fully vaccinated), and COVID-19 precaution questions. Participants also completed a picture-rating task using images from the International Affective Picture System. Images were rated on a Likert-type scale to calibrate the degree of liking and disliking. Ratings were computationally modeled using relative preference theory to produce a set of graphs for each participant (minimum R 2 >0.8). In total, 15 judgment features were extracted from these graphs, 2 being analogous to risk and loss aversion from behavioral economics. These judgment variables, along with demographics, were compared between those who were fully vaccinated and those who were not. In total, 3 machine learning approaches (random forest, balanced random forest [BRF], and logistic regression) were used to test how well judgment, demographic, and COVID-19 precaution variables predicted vaccine uptake . Mediation and moderation were implemented to assess statistical mechanisms underlying successful prediction.

Results: Age, income, marital status, employment status, ethnicity, educational level, and sex differed by vaccine uptake (Wilcoxon rank sum and chi-square P <.001). Most judgment variables also differed by vaccine uptake (Wilcoxon rank sum P <.05). A similar area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was achieved by the 3 machine learning frameworks, although random forest and logistic regression produced specificities between 30% and 38% (vs 74.2% for BRF), indicating a lower performance in predicting unvaccinated participants. BRF achieved high precision (87.8%) and AUROC (79%) with moderate to high accuracy (70.8%) and balanced recall (69.6%) and specificity (74.2%). It should be noted that, for BRF, the negative predictive value was <50% despite good specificity. For BRF and random forest, 63% to 75% of the feature importance came from the 15 judgment variables. Furthermore, age, income, and educational level mediated relationships between judgment variables and vaccine uptake .

Conclusions: The findings demonstrate the underlying importance of judgment variables for vaccine choice and uptake, suggesting that vaccine education and messaging might target varying judgment profiles to improve uptake. These methods could also be used to aid vaccine rollouts and health care preparedness by providing location-specific details (eg, identifying areas that may experience low vaccination and high hospitalization).

Introduction

In early 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic wreaked havoc worldwide, triggering rapid vaccine development efforts. Despite federal, state, and workplace vaccination mandates, many individuals made judgments against COVID-19 vaccination, leading researchers to study the psychology underlying individual vaccination preferences and what might differentiate the framework for judgment between individuals who were fully vaccinated against COVID-19 and those who were not (henceforth referred to as vaccine uptake ). A better understanding of these differences in judgment may highlight targets for public messaging and education to increase the incidence of choosing vaccination.

Multiple studies have sought to predict an individual’s intention to receive a COVID-19 vaccine or specific variables underlying vaccination choices or mitigation strategies [ 1 - 7 ], but few have predicted vaccine uptake . One such study used 83 sociodemographic variables (with education, ethnicity, internet access, income, longitude, and latitude being the most important predictors) to predict vaccine uptake with 62% accuracy [ 8 ], confirming both the importance and limitations of these variables in prediction models. Other studies have compared demographic groups between vaccinated and nonvaccinated persons; Bulusu et al [ 9 ] found that young adults (aged 18-35 years), women, and those with higher levels of education had higher odds of being vaccinated. In a study of >12 million persons, the largest percentage of those who initiated COVID-19 vaccination were White, non-Hispanic women between the ages of 50 and 64 years [ 10 ]. Demographic variables are known to affect how individuals judge what is rewarding or aversive [ 11 , 12 ] yet are not themselves variables quantifying how individuals make judgments that then frame decisions.

Judgment reflects an individual’s preferences, or the variable extent to which they approach or avoid events in the world based on the rewarding or aversive effects of these events [ 13 - 15 ]. The definition of preference in psychology differs from that in economics. In psychology, preferences are associated with “wanting” and “liking” and are framed by judgments that precede decisions, which can be quantified through reinforcement reward or incentive reward tasks [ 12 , 16 - 21 ]. In economics, preferences are relations derived from consumer choice data (refer to the axioms of revealed preference [ 22 ]) and reflect choices or decisions based on judgments that place value on behavioral options. Economist Paul Samuelson noted that decisions are “assumed to be correlative to desire or want” [ 23 ]. In this study, we focused on a set of variables that frame judgment, with the presumption that judgments precede choices [ 12 , 20 ]. Variables that frame judgment can be derived from tasks using operant key-pressing tasks that quantify “wanting” [ 24 - 33 ] or simple rating tasks that are analogous to “liking” [ 20 , 34 ]. Both operant keypress and rating tasks measure variables that quantify the average (mean) magnitude ( K ), variance ( σ ), and pattern (ie, Shannon entropy [ H ]) of reward and aversion judgments [ 35 ]. We refer to this methodology and the multiple relationships between these variables and features based on their graphical relationships as relative preference theory (RPT; Figure 1 ) [ 18 , 36 ]. RPT has been shown to produce discrete, recurrent, robust, and scalable relationships between judgment variables [ 37 ] that produce mechanistic models for prediction [ 33 ], and which have demonstrated relationships to brain circuitry [ 24 - 27 , 30 ] and psychiatric illness [ 28 ]. Of the graphs produced for RPT, 2 appear to resemble graphs derived with different variables in economics, namely, prospect theory [ 38 ] and the mean-variance function for portfolio theory described by Markowitz [ 39 ]. Given this graphical resemblance, it is important to note that RPT functions quantifying value are not the same as standard representations of preference in economics. Behavioral economic variables such as loss aversion and risk aversion [ 38 , 40 - 51 ] are not to be interpreted in the same context given that both reflect biases and bounds to human rationality. In psychology, they are grounded in judgments that precede decisions, whereas in economics, they are grounded in consumer decisions themselves. Going forward, we will focus on judgment-based loss aversion, representing the overweighting of negative judgments relative to positive ones, and judgment-based risk aversion, representing the preference for small but certain assessments over larger but less certain ones (ie, assessments that have more variance associated with them) [ 38 , 40 - 51 ]. Herein, loss aversion and risk aversion refer to ratings or judgments that precede decisions.

A number of studies have described how risk aversion and other judgment variables are important for individual vaccine choices and hesitancies [ 52 - 58 ]. Hudson and Montelpare [ 54 ] found that risk aversion may promote vaccine adherence when people perceive contracting a disease as more dangerous or likely. Trueblood et al [ 52 ] noticed that those who were more risk seeking (as measured via a gamble ladder task) were more likely to receive the vaccine even if the vaccine was described as expedited. Wagner et al [ 53 ] described how risk misperceptions (when the actual risk does not align with the perceived risk) may result from a combination of cognitive biases, including loss aversion. A complex theoretical model using historical vaccine attitudes grounded in decision-making has also been proposed to predict COVID-19 vaccination, but this model has not yet been tested [ 59 ]. To our knowledge, no study has assessed how well a model comprising variables that reflect reward and aversion judgments predicts vaccine uptake .

Goal of This Study

Given the many vaccine-related issues that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic (eg, vaccine shortages, hospital overload, and vaccination resistance or hesitancy), it is critical to develop methods that might improve planning around such shortcomings. Because judgment variables are fundamental to vaccine choice, they provide a viable target for predicting vaccine uptake . In addition, the rating methodology used to quantify variables of judgment is independent of methods quantifying vaccine uptake or intent to vaccinate, limiting response biases within the study data.

In this study, we aimed to predict COVID-19 vaccine uptake using judgment, demographic, and COVID-19 precaution (ie, behaviors minimizing potential exposure to COVID-19) variables using multiple machine learning algorithms, including logistic regression, random forest, and balanced random forest (BRF). BRF was hypothesized to perform best given its potential benefits with handling class imbalances [ 60 ], balancing both recall and specificity, and producing Gini scores that provide relative variable importance to prediction. In this study, the need for data imbalance techniques was motivated by the importance of the specificity metric, which would reflect the proportion of participants who did not receive full vaccination; without balancing, the model might not achieve similar recall and specificity values. When there is a large difference between recall and specificity, specificity might instead reflect the size of the minority class (those who did not receive full vaccination). In general, random forest approaches have been reported to have benefits over other approaches such as principal component analysis and neural networks, in which the N-dimensional feature space or layers (in the case of neural networks) are complex nonlinear functions, making it difficult to interpret variable importance and relationships to the outcome variable. To provide greater certainty about these assumptions, we performed logistic regression in parallel with random forest and BRF. The 3 machine learning approaches used a small feature set (<20) with interpretable relationships to the predicted variable. Such interpretations may not be achievable in big data approaches that use hundreds to thousands of variables that seemingly add little significance to the prediction models. Interpretation was facilitated by (1) the Gini importance criterion associated with BRF and random forest, which provided a profile of the judgment variables most important for prediction; and (2) mediation and moderation analyses that offered insights into statistical mechanisms among judgment variables, demographic (contextual) variables, and vaccine uptake . Determining whether judgment variables are predictive of COVID-19 vaccine uptake and defining which demographic variables facilitate this prediction presents a number of behavioral targets for vaccine education and messaging—and potentially identifies actionable targets for increasing vaccine uptake .

More broadly, the prediction of vaccine uptake may aid (1) vaccine supply chain and administration logistics by indicating areas that may need more or fewer vaccines, (2) targeted governmental messaging to locations with low predicted uptake, and (3) preparation of areas that may experience high cases of infection that could ultimately impact health care preparedness and infrastructure. The proposed method could also be applied to other mandated or government-recommended vaccines (eg, influenza and human papillomavirus) to facilitate the aforementioned logistics. Locally, vaccine uptake prediction could facilitate local messaging and prepare health care institutions for vaccine rollout and potential hospital overload. Nationally, prediction might inform public health officials and government communication bodies that are responsible for messaging and vaccine rollout with the goal of improving vaccine uptake and limiting infection and hospital overload.

Recruitment

Similar recruitment procedures for a smaller population-based study have been described previously [ 61 - 63 ]. In this study, participants were randomly sampled from the general US population using an email survey database used by Gold Research, Inc. Gold Research administered questionnaires in December 2021 using recruitment formats such as (1) customer databases from large companies that participate in revenue-sharing agreements, (2) social media, and (3) direct mail. Recruited participants followed a double opt-in consent procedure that included primary participation in the study as well as secondary use of anonymized, deidentified data (ie, all identifying information was removed by Gold Research before retrieval by the research group) in secondary analyses (refer to the Ethical Considerations section for more detail). During consent procedures, participants provided demographic information (eg, age, race, and sex) to ensure that the sampled participants adequately represented the US census at the time of the survey (December 2021). Respondents were also presented with repeated test questions to screen out those providing random and illogical responses or showing flatline or speeder behavior. Participants who provided such data were flagged, and their data were removed.

Because other components of the survey required an adequate sample of participants with mental health conditions, Gold Research oversampled 15% (60,000/400,000) of the sample for mental health conditions, and >400,000 respondents were contacted to complete the questionnaire. Gold Research estimated that, of the 400,000 participants, >300,000 (>75%) either did not respond or declined to participate. Of the remaining 25% (100,000/400,000) who clicked on the survey link, >50% (52,000/100,000) did not fully complete the questionnaire. Of the ≥48,000 participants who completed the survey (ie, ≥48,000/400,000, ≥12% of the initial pool of queried persons), those who did not clear data integrity assessments were omitted. Participants who met quality assurance procedures (refer to the following section) were selected, with a limit of 4000 to 4050 total participants.

Eligible participants were required to be aged between 18 and 70 years at the time of the survey, comprehend the English language, and have access to an electronic device (eg, laptop or smartphone).

Ethical Considerations

All participants provided informed consent, which included their primary participation in the study as well as the secondary use of their anonymized, deidentified data (ie, all identifying information removed by Gold Research before retrieval by the research group) in secondary analyses. This study was approved by the Northwestern University institutional review board (approval STU00213665) for the initial project start and later by the University of Cincinnati institutional review board (approval 2023-0164) as some Northwestern University investigators moved to the University of Cincinnati. All study approvals were in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. All participants were compensated with US $10 for taking part. Detailed survey instructions have been published previously [ 61 - 63 ].

Quality Assurance and Data Exclusion

Three additional quality assurance measures were used to flag nonadhering participants: (1) participants who indicated that they had ≥10 clinician-diagnosed illnesses (refer to Figure S1 in Multimedia Appendix 1 [ 18 , 33 , 36 , 64 - 68 ] for a list), (2) participants who showed minimal variance in the picture-rating task (ie, all pictures were rated the same or the ratings varied only by 1 point; refer to the Picture-Rating Task section), and (3) inconsistencies between educational level and years of education and participants who completed the questionnaire in <800 seconds.

Data from 4019 participants who passed the initial data integrity assessments were anonymized and then sent to the research team. Data were further excluded if the quantitative feature set derived from the picture-rating task was incomplete or if there were extreme outliers (refer to the RPT Framework section). Using these exclusion criteria, of the 4019 participants, 3476 (86.49%) were cleared for statistical analysis, representing 0.87% (3476/400,000) of the initial recruitment pool. A flowchart of participant exclusion is shown in Figure 2 .

Questionnaire

Participants were asked to report their age, sex, ethnicity, annual household income, marital status, employment status, and educational level. Participants were asked to report whether they had received the full vaccination ( yes or no responses). At the time of the survey, participants were likely to have received either 2 doses of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine or 1 dose of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine as per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines. Participants were also asked to respond yes (they routinely followed the precaution) or no (they did not routinely follow the precaution) to 4 COVID-19 precaution behaviors: mask wearing, social distancing, washing or sanitizing hands, and not gathering in large groups (refer to Tables S1 and S2 in Multimedia Appendix 1 for the complete questions and sample sizes, respectively). In addition, participants completed a picture-rating task at 2 points during the survey (refer to the Picture-Rating Task section).

Picture-Rating Task

A picture-rating task was administered to quantify participants’ degree of liking and disliking a validated picture set using pictures calibrated over large samples for their emotional intensity and valence [ 69 , 70 ]. Ratings from this task have been mathematically modeled using RPT to define graphical features of reward and aversion judgments. Each feature quantifies a core aspect of judgment, including risk aversion and loss aversion. Judgment variables have been shown to meet the criteria for lawfulness [ 37 ] that produce mechanistic models for prediction [ 33 ], with published relationships to brain circuitry [ 24 - 27 , 30 ] and psychiatric illness [ 28 ]. A more complete description of these judgment variables and their computation can be found in the RPT Framework section and in Table 1 .

For this task, participants were shown 48 unique color images from the International Affective Picture System [ 69 , 70 ]. A total of 6 picture categories were used: sports, disasters, cute animals, aggressive animals, nature (beach vs mountains), and men and women dressed minimally, with 8 pictures per category (48 pictures in total; Figure 1 A). These images have been used and validated in research on human emotion, attention, and preferences [ 69 , 70 ]. The images were displayed on the participants’ digital devices with a maximum size of 1204 × 768 pixels. Below each picture was a rating scale from −3 ( dislike very much ) to +3 ( like very much ), where 0 indicated indifference ( Figure 1 A). While there was no time limit for selecting a picture rating, participants were asked to rate the images as quickly as possible and use their first impression. Once a rating was selected, the next image was displayed.

RPT Framework

Ratings from the picture-rating task were analyzed using an RPT framework. This framework fits approach and avoidance curves and derives mathematical features from graphical plots ( Figures 1 B-1D). These methods have been described at length in prior work and are briefly described in this section [ 11 , 18 , 33 , 36 ]. More complete descriptions and quality assurance procedures can be found in Multimedia Appendix 1 .

At least 15 judgment variables can be mathematically derived from this framework and are psychologically interpretable; they have been validated using both operant keypress [ 9 , 25 - 27 ] and picture-rating tasks [ 11 , 34 ]. The 15 judgment variables are loss aversion, risk aversion, loss resilience, ante, insurance, peak positive risk, peak negative risk, reward tipping point, aversion tipping point, total reward risk, total aversion risk, reward-aversion trade-off, trade-off range, reward-aversion consistency, and consistency range. Loss aversion, risk aversion, loss resilience, ante, and insurance are derived from the logarithmic or power-law fit of mean picture ratings ( K ) versus entropy of ratings ( H ); this is referred to as the value function ( Figure 1 B). Peak positive risk, peak negative risk, reward tipping point, aversion tipping point, total reward risk, and total aversion risk are derived from the quadratic fit of K versus the SD of picture ratings ( σ ); this is referred to as the limit function ( Figure 1 C). Risk aversion trade-off, trade-off range, risk aversion consistency, and consistency range are derived from the radial fit of the pattern of avoidance judgments ( H − ) versus the pattern of approach judgments ( H + ); this is referred to as the trade-off function ( Figure 1 D). Value (Figure S2A in Multimedia Appendix 1 ), limit (Figure S2B in Multimedia Appendix 1 ), and trade-off (Figure S2C in Multimedia Appendix 1 ) functions were plotted for 500 randomly sampled participants, and nonlinear curve fits were assessed for goodness of fit, yielding R 2 , adjusted R 2 , and the associated F statistic for all participants (Figure S2D in Multimedia Appendix 1 ). Only the logarithmic and quadratic fits are listed in Table S3 in Multimedia Appendix 1 . Each feature describes a quantitative component of a participant’s reward and aversion judgment (refer to Table 1 for abbreviated descriptions and Multimedia Appendix 1 for complete descriptions). Collectively, the 15 RPT features will be henceforth referred to as “judgment variables.” The summary statistics for these variables can be found in Table S3 in Multimedia Appendix 1 .

Statistical and Machine Learning Analyses

Wilcoxon rank sum tests, chi-square tests, and Gini importance plotting were performed in Stata (version 17; StataCorp) [ 72 ]. Machine learning algorithms were run in Python (version 3.9; Python Software Foundation) [ 73 ], where the scikit-learn (version 1.2.2) [ 74 ] and imbalanced-learn (version 0.10.1) [ 75 ] libraries were used. Post hoc mediation and moderation analyses were performed in R (version 4.2.0; R Foundation for Statistical Computing) [ 76 ].

Demographic and Judgment Variable Differences by Vaccination Uptake

Each of the 7 demographic variables (age, income, marital status, employment status, ethnicity, educational level, and sex) was assessed for differences using yes or no responses to receiving the full COVID-19 vaccination (2525/3476, 72.64% yes responses and 951/3476, 27.36% no responses), henceforth referred to as vaccine uptake . Ordinal (income and educational level) and continuous (age) demographic variables were analyzed using the Wilcoxon rank sum test ( α =.05). Expected and actual rank sums were reported using Wilcoxon rank sum tests. Nominal variables were analyzed using the chi-square test ( α =.05). For significant chi-square results, demographic response percentages were computed to compare the fully vaccinated and not fully vaccinated groups.

Each of the 15 judgment variables was assessed for differences across yes or no responses to vaccine uptake using the Wilcoxon rank sum test ( α =.05). The expected and actual rank sums were reported. Significant results ( α <.05) were corrected for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini-Hochberg correction, and Q values of <0.05 ( Q Hoch ) were reported.

Prediction Analyses

Logistic regression, random forest, and BRF were used to predict vaccine uptake using judgment, demographic, and COVID-19 precaution variables. Gini plots were produced for random forest and BRF to determine the importance of the judgment variables in predicting COVID-19 vaccination. The BRF algorithm balances the samples by randomly downsampling the majority class at each bootstrapped iteration to match the number of samples in the minority class. To provide greater certainty about the results, random forest and logistic regression were performed to compare with BRF results.

Two sets of BRF, random forest, and logistic regression analyses were run: (1) with the 7 demographic variables and 15 judgment variables included as predictors and (2) with the 7 demographic variables, 15 judgment variables, and 4 COVID-19 precaution behaviors included as predictors. COVID-19 precaution behaviors included yes or no responses to wearing a mask, social distancing, washing hands, and avoiding large gatherings (refer to Table S1 in Multimedia Appendix 1 for more details). The sample sizes for yes or no responses to the COVID-19 precaution behavior questions are provided in Table S2 in Multimedia Appendix 1 . For all 3 models, 10-fold cross-validation was repeated 100 times to obtain performance metrics, where data were split for training (90%) and testing (10%) for each of the 10 iterations in cross-validation. The averages of the performance metrics were reported across 100 repeats of 10-fold cross-validation for the test sets. The reported metrics included accuracy, recall, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), precision, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). For BRF, the Python toolbox imbalanced-learn was used to build the classifier, where the training set for each iteration of cross-validation was downsampled but the testing set was unchanged (ie, imbalanced). That is, downsampling only occurred with the bootstrapped samples for training the model, and balancing was not performed on the testing set. The default number of estimators was 100, and the default number of tree splits was 10; the splits were created using the Gini criterion. In separate analyses, estimators were increased to 300, and splits were increased to 15 to test model performance. Using the scikit-learn library, the same procedures used for BRF were followed for random forest without downsampling. Logistic regression without downsampling was implemented with a maximum of 100 iterations and optimization using a limited-memory Broyden-Fletcher-Goldfarb-Shanno solver. For logistic regression, model coefficients with respective SEs, z statistics, P values, and 95% CIs were reported.

Relative feature importance based on the Gini criterion (henceforth referred to as Gini importance ) was determined from BRF and random forest using the .feature_importances_ attribute from scikit-learn, and results were reported as the mean decrease in the Gini score and plotted in Stata. To test model performance using only the top predictors, two additional sets of BRF analyses were run: (1) with the top 3 features as predictors and (2) with the top 3 features and 15 judgment variables as predictors.

Post Hoc Mediation and Moderation

Given the importance of both judgment variables and demographic variables (refer to the Results section), we evaluated post hoc how age, income, and educational level (ie, the top 3 predictors) might statistically influence the relationship between the 15 judgment variables and COVID-19 vaccine uptake . To identify statistical mechanisms influencing our prediction results, we used mediation and moderation, which can (1) determine the directionality between variables and (2) assess variable influence in statistical relationships. Mediation is used to determine whether one variable, the mediator, statistically improves the relationship between 2 other variables (independent variables [IVs] and dependent variables [DVs]) [ 77 - 80 ]. When mediating variables improve a relationship, the mediator is said to sit in the statistical pathway between the IVs and DVs [ 77 , 80 , 81 ]. Moderation is used to test whether the interaction between an IV and a moderating variable predicts a DV [ 81 , 82 ].

For mediation, primary and secondary mediations were performed. Primary mediations included each of the 15 judgment behaviors as the IV, each of the 3 demographic variables (age, income, and educational level) as the mediator, and vaccine uptake as the DV. Secondary mediations held the 15 judgment behaviors as the mediator, the 3 demographic variables as the IV, and vaccine uptake as the DV. For moderation, the moderating variable was each of the 3 demographic variables (age, income, and educational level), the IV was each of the 15 judgment behaviors, and the DV was vaccine uptake . The mathematical procedures for mediation and moderation can be found in Multimedia Appendix 1 .

Demographic Assessment

Of the 400,000 persons queried by Gold Research, Inc, 48,000 (12%) completed the survey, and 3476 (0.87%) survived all quality assurance procedures. Participants were predominately female, married, and White individuals; employed full time with some college education; and middle-aged (mean age 51.40, SD 14.92 years; Table 2 ). Of the 3476 participants, 2525 (72.64%) reported receiving a full dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, and 951 (27.36%) reported not receiving a full dose. Participants who indicated full vaccination were predominately female, married, White individuals, and retired; had some college education; and were older on average (mean age 54.19, SD 14.13 years) when compared to the total cohort. Participants who indicated that they did not receive the full vaccine were also predominately female, married, and White individuals. In contrast to those who received the full vaccination, those not fully vaccinated were predominately employed full time, high school graduates, and of average age (mean age 43.98, SD 14.45 years; median age 45, IQR 32-56 years) when compared to the total cohort. Table 2 summarizes the demographic group sample size percentages for the total cohort, those fully vaccinated, and those not fully vaccinated.

When comparing percentages between vaccination groups, a higher percentage of male individuals were fully vaccinated, and a higher percentage of female individuals were not fully vaccinated ( Table 2 ). In addition, a higher percentage of married, White and Asian or Pacific Islander, and retired individuals indicated receiving the full vaccine when compared to the percentages of those who did not receive the vaccine ( Table 2 ). Conversely, a higher percentage of single, African American, and unemployed individuals indicated not receiving the full vaccine ( Table 2 ).

Analysis of Machine Learning Features

Demographic variable differences by vaccine uptake.

Age, income level, and educational level significantly differed between those who did and did not receive the vaccine (Wilcoxon rank sum test α <.05; Table 3 ). Those who indicated full vaccination were, on average, older (median age 59 y), had a higher annual household income (median reported income level US $50,000-$75,000), and had higher levels of education (the median reported educational level was a bachelor’s degree).

Chi-square tests revealed that marital status, employment status, sex, and ethnicity also varied by full vaccine uptake (chi-square α <.05; Table 3 ).

a N/A: not applicable.

Judgment Variable Differences by Vaccine Uptake

In total, 10 of the 15 judgment variables showed nominal rank differences ( α <.05), and 9 showed significant rank differences after correction for multiple comparisons ( Q Hoch <0.05) between those who indicated full vaccination and those who indicated that they did not receive the full vaccination ( Table 4 ). The 10 features included loss aversion, risk aversion, loss resilience, ante, insurance, peak positive risk, peak negative risk, total reward risk, total aversion risk, and trade-off range. Those who indicated full vaccination exhibited lower loss aversion, ante, peak positive risk, peak negative risk, total reward risk, and total aversion risk as well as higher risk aversion, loss resilience, insurance, and trade-off range when compared to the expected rank sum. Those who did not receive the full vaccination exhibited lower risk aversion, loss resilience, insurance, and trade-off range and higher loss aversion, ante, peak positive risk, peak negative risk, total reward risk, and total aversion risk when compared to the expected rank sum.

Machine Learning Results: Predicting Vaccination Uptake

Prediction results.

With the inclusion of demographic and judgment variables, the BRF classifier with the highest accuracy (68.9%) and precision (86.7%) in predicting vaccine uptake resulted when the number of estimators was set to 300 and the number of splits was set to 10 ( Table 5 ). With the addition of 4 COVID-19 precaution behaviors, the BRF classifier with the highest accuracy (70.8%) and precision (87.8%) to predict vaccine uptake occurred when the number of estimators was set to 300 and the number of splits was set to 10. It is notable that specificity was consistently >72%, precision was >86%, and the AUROC was >75% but the NPV was consistently <50%. For random forest and logistic regression, recall and accuracy values were higher than those for BRF, but specificity was always <39%, indicating a lower performance in predicting those who did not receive the vaccine. Precision was also lower, yet the AUROC was consistent with that of the BRF results.

a A total of 15 judgment variables ( Table 4 ), 7 demographic variables ( Table 3 ), and 4 COVID-19 precaution behavior (covid_beh) variables (Table S1 in Multimedia Appendix 1 ) were included in balanced random forest, random forest, and logistic regression models to predict COVID-19 vaccine uptake . We used 10-fold cross-validation, where the data were split 90-10 for each of the 10 iterations.

b NPV: negative predictive value.

c AUROC: area under the receiver operating characteristic curve.

d BRF: balanced random forest.

e N/A: not applicable.

Feature Importance for BRF and Random Forest

Regarding BRF, Gini importance was highest for age, educational level, and income in both BRF classifiers (both without [ Figures 3 A and 3B] and with [ Figures 3 C and 3D] inclusion of the COVID-19 precaution behaviors; refer to the clusters outlined in red in Figures 3 B and 3D). For both BRF classifiers, the top 3 predictors (age, income, and educational level) had a combined effect of 23.4% on the Gini importance for prediction. Following these predictors, the 15 judgment variables had similar importance scores for both BRF classifiers (range 0.037-0.049; refer to the clusters outlined in black in Figures 3 B and 3D). These 15 predictors had a combined effect of 62.9% to 68.7% on the Gini importance for prediction, indicating that judgment variables were collectively the most important for prediction outcomes. The least important features for predicting vaccination status were demographic variables regarding employment status, marital status, ethnicity, sex, and the 4 COVID-19 precaution behaviors. These predictors only contributed 7.3% to the Gini importance for prediction. As a follow-up analysis, BRF analyses were run using the top 3 features from both the Gini importance plots (age, educational level, and income; Table S4 in Multimedia Appendix 1 ) and the top 3 features plus 15 judgment variables (Table S5 in Multimedia Appendix 1 ). The results did not outperform those presented in Table 5 .

For random forest, the Gini importance was highest for age and educational level ( Figure 4 ). These top 2 predictors had a combined effect of 16.5% to 16.8% for the 2 models ( Figures 4 A and 4C). Following these predictors, the 15 judgment variables and the income variable had similar Gini importance, with a combined effect of 69.4% to 75.5% for Gini importance. The least important predictors mirrored those of the BRF results.

Logistic Regression Model Statistics

Both model 1 (demographic and judgment variables) and model 2 (demographic, judgment, and COVID-19 precaution behavior variables) were significant ( P <.001). The model statistics are provided in Tables 6 (model 1) and 7 (model 2). In model 1, age, income, marital status, employment status, sex, educational level, ante, aversion tipping point, reward-aversion consistency, and consistency range were significant ( α <.05). In model 2, age, income, marital status, employment status, sex, educational level, risk aversion, ante, peak negative risk, mask wearing, and not gathering in large groups were significant ( α <.05).

a Overall model: P <.001; pseudo- R 2 =0.149; log-likelihood=−1736.8; log-likelihood null=−2039.7.

a Overall model: P <.001; pseudo- R 2 =0.206; log-likelihood=−1620.0; log-likelihood null=−2039.7.

Because judgment variables and demographic variables (age, income, and educational level) were important predictors, we evaluated post hoc whether demographics statistically mediated or moderated the relationship between each of the 15 judgment variables and binary responses to COVID-19 vaccination.

For primary mediations, age significantly mediated the statistical relationship between 11 judgment variables and vaccine uptake ( α <.05; Table 8 ), income mediated 8 relationships α < <.05; Table 8 ), and educational level mediated 9 relationships ( α <.05; Table 8 ). In total, 7 judgment variables overlapped across the 3 models: loss resilience, ante, insurance, peak positive risk, peak negative risk, risk aversion trade-off, and consistency range. Of these, 5 significantly differed between vaccine uptake (those fully vaccinated and those not): loss resilience, ante, insurance, peak positive risk, and peak negative risk ( Table 3 ). Thus, 2 judgment features did not differ by vaccine uptake but were connected with uptake by significant mediation.

For the secondary mediation analyses, 5 judgment variables mediated the statistical relationship between age and vaccine uptake ; these variables overlapped with the 11 findings of the primary mediation analyses. Furthermore, 4 judgment variables mediated the statistical relationship between income and vaccine uptake ; these variables overlapped with the 8 findings of the primary mediation analyses. Finally, 4 judgment variables mediated the statistical relationship between educational level and vaccine uptake ; these variables overlapped with the 9 findings of the primary mediation analyses. In all secondary analyses, approximately half of the judgment variables were involved in mediation as compared to the doubling of judgment variable numbers observed in the primary mediation analyses. In the secondary mediation analyses, the same 4 judgment variables were found in both primary and secondary mediation results, indicating a mixed mediation framework.

From the moderation analyses, only 2 interactions out of a potential 45 were observed. Age interacted with risk aversion trade-off, and income interacted with loss resilience to statistically predict vaccine uptake ( α <.05; Table 8 ). The 2 moderation results overlapped with the mediation results, indicating mixed mediation-moderation relationships [ 78 , 80 , 81 ].

Principal Findings

Relatively few studies have sought to predict COVID-19 vaccine uptake using machine learning approaches [ 8 , 59 ]. Given that a small set of studies has assessed the psychological basis that may underlie vaccine uptake and choices [ 6 , 52 , 53 , 56 , 58 , 59 , 83 ], but none have used computational cognition variables based on reward and aversion judgment to predict vaccine uptake , we sought to assess whether variables quantifying human judgment predicted vaccine uptake . This study found that 7 demographic and 15 judgment variables predicted vaccine uptake with balanced and moderate recall and specificity, moderate accuracy, high AUROC, and high precision using a BRF framework. Other machine learning approaches (random forest and logistic regression) produced higher accuracies but lower specificities, indicating a lower prediction of those who did not receive the vaccine. The BRF also had challenges predicting the negative class, as demonstrated by the relatively low NPV despite having higher specificity than random forest and logistic regression. Feature importance analyses from both BRF and random forest showed that the judgment variables collectively dominated the Gini importance scores. Furthermore, demographic variables acted as statistical mediators in the relationship between judgment variables and vaccine uptake . These mediation findings support the interpretation of the machine learning results that demographic factors, together with judgment variables, predict COVID-19 vaccine uptake .

Interpretation of Judgment Differences Between Vaccinated and Nonvaccinated Individuals

Those who were fully vaccinated had lower values for loss aversion, ante, peak positive risk, peak negative risk, total reward risk, and total aversion risk, along with higher values for risk aversion, loss resilience, insurance, and trade-off range (refer to Table 1 for variable descriptions). Lower loss aversion corresponds to less overweighting of bad outcomes relative to good ones [ 84 ] and a potential willingness to obtain a vaccine with uncertain outcomes. A lower ante suggests that individuals are less willing to engage in risky behaviors surrounding potential infection, which is also consistent with the 4 other judgment variables that define relationships between risk and value (peak positive risk, peak negative risk, total reward risk, and total aversion risk). In participants who indicated full vaccination, lower peak positive risk and peak negative risk were related to individuals having a lower risk that they must overcome to make a choice to either approach or avoid, as per the decision utility equation by Markowitz [ 39 , 71 ]. The lower total reward risk and total aversion risk indicate that the interactions between reward, aversion, and the risks associated with them did not scale significantly; namely, higher reward was not associated with higher risk, and higher negative outcomes were not associated with the uncertainty of them. For these participants, the ability of the vaccine to increase the probability of health and reduce the probability of harm from illness did not have to overcome high obstacles in their vaccine choice. Higher risk aversion in vaccinated participants suggests that these participants viewed contracting COVID-19 as a larger risk and, therefore, were more likely to receive the full dose. These findings are consistent with those of a study by Lepinteur et al [ 58 ], who found that risk-averse individuals were more likely to accept the COVID-19 vaccination, indicating that the perceived risk of contracting COVID-19 was greater than any risk from the vaccine. Hudson and Montelpare [ 54 ] also found that risk aversion may promote vaccine adherence when people perceive contracting a disease as more dangerous or likely. Higher loss resilience in the vaccinated group was also consistent with the perspective that vaccination would improve their resilience and act as a form of insurance against negative consequences. The higher trade-off range suggests that vaccinated individuals have a broader portfolio of preferences and are more adaptive to bad things occurring, whereas a lower trade-off indicates a restriction in preferences and less adaptability in those who did not receive the vaccine.

Comparison of Prediction Algorithms

When testing these judgment variables (with demographic and COVID-19 precaution behavior variables) in a BRF framework to predict vaccine uptake , we observed a high AUROC of 0.79, where an AUROC of 0.8 is often the threshold for excellent model performance in machine learning [ 85 , 86 ]. The similarity of our reported recall and specificity values with the BRF suggests a balance between predicting true positives and true negatives. The high precision indicates a high certainty in predicting those who were fully vaccinated. The BRF model was successful in identifying those who received the full vaccine (positive cases; indicated by high precision and moderate recall) and those who did not (negative cases; indicated by the specificity). However, NPV was low, indicating a higher rate of false prediction of those who did not receive a full dose counterbalanced by a higher specificity that reflects a higher rate of predicting true negatives. These observations are reflected in the moderate accuracy, which measures the number of correct predictions. A comparison of random forest, logistic regression, and BRF revealed that random forest and logistic regression models produced less balance between recall (high) and specificity (low), which could be interpreted as a bias toward predicting the majority class (ie, those who received the vaccine). That being said, the NPV for BRF was lower than that for random forest and logistic regression, where a low NPV indicates a low probability that those predicted to have not received the vaccine truly did not receive the vaccine when taking both classes into account. Together, the results from all 3 machine learning approaches reveal challenges in predicting the negative class (ie, those who did not receive the vaccine). Overall, the 3 models achieved high accuracy, recall, precision, and AUROC. BRF produced a greater balance between recall and specificity, and the outcome of the worst-performing metric (ie, NPV) was still higher than the specificities for the random forest and logistic regression models.

Feature Importance

Of the 3 prediction algorithms, random forest and BRF had very similar Gini importance results, whereas logistic regression elevated most demographic variables and a minority of judgment variables. This observation could be due to the large variance in each of the judgment variables, which could present challenges for achieving a good fit with logistic regression. In contrast, the demographic and COVID-19 precaution variables had low variance and could be more easily fit in a linear model, hence their significance in the logistic regression results. In comparison to logistic regression, decision trees (eg, BRF and random forest) use variable variance as additional information to optimize classification, potentially leading to a higher importance of judgment variables over most demographic and all COVID-19 precaution variables.

Focusing on the model with balanced recall and specificity (ie, the BRF classifiers [with and without COVID-19 precaution behaviors]), the top predictors were 3 demographic variables (age, income, and educational level), with distributions that varied by vaccine uptake in manners consistent with those of other reports. Namely, older individuals, those identifying as male and White individuals, and those who indicated a higher income and educational level corresponded to those who were or intended to be vaccinated [ 2 , 5 , 87 ]. Despite their saliency, these 3 variables together only contributed 23% to the prediction, corresponding to approximately one-third of the contribution from the 15 judgment variables (63%-69%). The individual Gini importance scores for the 15 judgment variables only ranged from 0.039 to 0.049 but were the dominant set of features behind the moderate accuracy, high precision, and high AUROC. The 18% difference between the accuracy and precision measures suggests that variables other than those used in this study may improve prediction, including contextual variables that may influence vaccine choices. Variables may include political affiliation [ 7 ], longitude and latitude [ 8 ], access to the internet [ 8 ], health literacy [ 54 ], and presence of underlying conditions [ 9 ]. Future work should seek to include these types of variables.

In the second BRF classifier, the 4 COVID-19 precaution behaviors only contributed 6.6% to the prediction. This low contribution could be due to these variables being binary, unlike the other demographic variables, which included a range of categories. In addition, COVID-19 precaution behaviors are specific to the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and do not promote interpretation beyond their specific context. The 15 judgment variables represent a contrast to this as they are empirically computed from a set of functions across many picture categories. An individual with higher risk aversion will generally tolerate higher amounts of uncertainty regarding a potential upside or gain as opposed to settling for what they have. This does not depend on what stimulus category they observe or the stimulus-response condition. Instead, it is a general feature of the bounds to their judgment and is part of what behavioral economists such as Kahneman consider as bounds to human rationality [ 84 ].

Mechanistic Relationships Between Judgment and Demographic Variables

The Gini score plots were clear sigmoid-like graphs ( Figure 3 ), with only 3 of the 7 demographic variables ranking above the judgment variables. This observation was consistent in both BRF classifiers (with and without COVID-19 precaution behaviors), raising the possibility of a statistically mechanistic relationship among the top 3 demographic variables, the 15 judgment variables, and vaccine uptake . Indeed, we observed 28 primary mediation effects and 13 secondary mediation effects in contrast to 2 moderation relationships, which also happened to overlap with mediation findings, suggesting mixed mediation-moderation relationships [ 81 , 88 ]. The observation that most judgment variables were significant in mediation relationships but not in moderation relationships argues that prediction depended on the directional relationship between judgment and demographic variables to predict vaccine uptake . Furthermore, there were more significant primary mediations (when judgment variables were the IVs) compared to secondary mediations, suggesting the importance of judgment variables as IVs and demographic variables as mediators. Mathematically, judgment variables (IVs) influenced vaccine uptake (DV), and this relationship was stronger when demographic variables were added to the equation. The 13 secondary mediations all overlapped with the 28 primary mediations, where demographic variables were IVs and judgment variables were mediators, suggesting that demographic variables influenced vaccine uptake (DV) and that this relationship became stronger with the addition of judgment variables. This overlap of primary and secondary mediations for 4 of the judgment variables suggests that both judgment and demographic variables influenced the choice of being vaccinated within a mixed mediation framework because adding either one of them to the mediation model regressions made the relationships stronger [ 49 ]. The lack of moderation results and a considerable number of overlapping primary and secondary mediation results imply that the relationship between judgment variables and vaccine uptake did not depend purely on their interaction with age, income, or educational level (ie, moderation) but, instead, depended on the direct effects of these 3 demographic variables to strengthen the relationship between judgment variables and vaccine uptake . This type of analysis of statistical mechanisms is helpful for understanding contextual effects on our biases and might be important for considering how best to target or message those with higher loss aversion, ante, peak positive risk, peak negative risk, total reward risk, and total aversion risk (ie, in those who were not fully vaccinated).

Model Utility

The developed model is automatable and may have applications in public health. The picture-rating task can be deployed on any smart device or computer, making it accessible to much of the US population or regional populations. The ratings from this task can be automatically processed, and the results can be stored in local or national databases. This method of data collection is novel in that persons cannot bias their responses as the rating task has no perceivable relation to vaccination choices. Government and public health bodies can access these data to determine predicted vaccine uptake rates locally or nationally, which can be used to (1) prepare vaccine rollouts and supply chain demand, (2) prepare health care institutions in areas that may experience low vaccine adherence and potentially higher infection rates, and (3) determine which areas may need more targeted messaging to appeal to specific judgment profiles. For use case 3, messaging about infection risks or precaution behaviors could be framed to address those with lower risk aversion, who, in this study, tended to forgo vaccination. Given that such individualized data would not be available a priori, it would be more plausible to collect data from similarly sized cohorts in geographic regions of concern to obtain regional judgment behavior profiles and, thus, target use cases 1 to 3. Further development of this model with different population samples might also improve our understanding of how certain judgment variables may be targeted with different types of messaging, offering a means to potentially improve vaccine uptake . This model might also be applied to other mandated or recommended vaccines such as those for influenza or human papillomavirus, ultimately improving preparation and messaging efforts. However, future work would be needed to model these varying vaccine choices.

Given the use of demographic variables in the proposed model, specific demographic populations could be assessed or considered for messaging. If particular demographic groups are predicted to have a low vaccine uptake rate, messaging can be targeted to those specific groups. For example, we observed that a higher percentage of female individuals were not fully vaccinated when compared to male individuals. This could be related to concerns about the COVID-19 vaccine affecting fertility or pregnancy. To improve uptake in this population, scientifically backed messaging could be used to confirm the safety of the vaccine in this context. Lower rates of vaccination have been reported in Black communities, which was also observed in this study. Researchers have identified targetable issues related to this observation, which include engagement of Black faith leaders and accessibility of vaccination clinics in Black communities, to name a few [ 89 ].

In summary, this model could be used to predict vaccine uptake at the local and national levels and further assess the demographic and judgment features that may underlie these choices.

Limitations

This study has a number of limitations that should be considered. First, there are the inherent limitations of using an internet survey—namely, the uncontrolled environment in which participants provide responses. Gold Research, Inc, and the research team applied stringent exclusion criteria, including the evaluation of the judgment graphs given that random responses produce graphs with extremely low R 2 fits (eg, <0.1). This was not the case in our cohort of 3476 participants, but this cannot perfectly exclude random or erroneous responses to other questionnaire components. Second, participants with mental health conditions were oversampled to meet the criteria for other survey components not discussed in this paper. This oversampling could potentially bias the results, and future work should use a general population sample to verify these findings. Third, demographic variability and the resulting confounds are inherent in population surveys, and other demographic factors not collected in this study may be important for prediction (eg, religion and family size). Future work might consider collecting a broader array of demographic factors to investigate and include in predictive modeling. Fourth, we used a limited set of 7 demographic variables and 15 judgment variables; however, a larger set of judgment variables is potentially computable and could be considered for future studies. There is also little information on how post–COVID-19 effects, including socioeconomic effects, affect COVID-19 vaccination choices.

Conclusions

To our knowledge, there has been minimal research on how biases in human judgment might contribute to the psychology underlying individual vaccination preferences and what differentiates individuals who were fully vaccinated against COVID-19 from those who were not. This population study of several thousand participants demonstrated that a small set of demographic variables and 15 judgment variables predicted vaccine uptake with moderate to high accuracy and high precision and AUROC, although a large range of specificities was achieved depending on the classification method used. In an age of big data machine learning approaches, this study provides an option for using fewer but more interpretable variables. Age, income, and educational level were independently the most important predictors of vaccine uptake , but judgment variables collectively dominated the importance rankings and contributed almost two-thirds to the prediction of COVID-19 vaccination for the BRF and random forest models. Age, income, and educational level significantly mediated the statistical relationship between judgment variables and vaccine uptake , indicating a statistically mechanistic relationship grounding the prediction results. These findings support the hypothesis that small sets of judgment variables might provide a target for vaccine education and messaging to improve uptake. Such education and messaging might also need to consider contextual variables (ie, age, income, and educational level) that mediate the effect of judgment variables on vaccine uptake . Judgment and demographic variables can be readily collected using any digital device, including smartphones, which are accessible worldwide. Further development and use of this model could (1) improve vaccine uptake , (2) better prepare vaccine rollouts and health care institutions, (3) improve messaging efforts, and (4) have applications for other mandated or government-recommended vaccines.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Carol Ross, Angela Braggs-Brown, Tom Talavage, Eric Nauman, and Marc Cahay at the University of Cincinnati (UC) College of Engineering and Applied Sciences, who significantly impacted the transfer of research funding to UC. Funding for this work was provided in part to HCB by the Office of Naval Research (awards N00014-21-1-2216 and N00014-23-1-2396) and to HCB from a Jim Goetz donation to the UC College of Engineering and Applied Sciences. Finally, the authors thank the anonymous reviewers for their constructive input, which substantially improved the manuscript. The opinions expressed in this paper are those of the authors and are not necessarily representative of those of their respective institutions.

Data Availability

The data set and corresponding key used in this study are available in Multimedia Appendix 2 .

Conflicts of Interest

A provisional patent has been submitted by the following authors (NLV, SB, HCB, SL, LS, and AKK): “Methods of predicting vaccine uptake,” provisional application # 63/449,460.

Supplementary material.

Ezati Rad R, Kahnouji K, Mohseni S, Shahabi N, Noruziyan F, Farshidi H, et al. Predicting the COVID-19 vaccine receive intention based on the theory of reasoned action in the south of Iran. BMC Public Health. Feb 04, 2022;22(1):229. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Mewhirter J, Sagir M, Sanders R. Towards a predictive model of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among American adults. Vaccine. Mar 15, 2022;40(12):1783-1789. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Romate J, Rajkumar E, Greeshma R. Using the integrative model of behavioural prediction to understand COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy behaviour. Sci Rep. Jun 04, 2022;12(1):9344. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Kalam MA, Davis TPJ, Shano S, Uddin MN, Islam MA, Kanwagi R, et al. Exploring the behavioral determinants of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among an urban population in Bangladesh: implications for behavior change interventions. PLoS One. 2021;16(8):e0256496. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Koesnoe S, Siddiq TH, Pelupessy DC, Yunihastuti E, Awanis GS, Widhani A, et al. Using integrative behavior model to predict COVID-19 vaccination intention among health care workers in Indonesia: a nationwide survey. Vaccines (Basel). May 04, 2022;10(5):719. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Hudson A, Hall PA, Hitchman SC, Meng G, Fong GT. Cognitive predictors of COVID-19 mitigation behaviors in vaccinated and unvaccinated general population members. Vaccine. Jun 19, 2023;41(27):4019-4026. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Dhanani LY, Franz B. A meta-analysis of COVID-19 vaccine attitudes and demographic characteristics in the United States. Public Health. Jun 2022;207:31-38. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Cheong Q, Au-Yeung M, Quon S, Concepcion K, Kong JD. Predictive modeling of vaccination uptake in US counties: a machine learning-based approach. J Med Internet Res. Nov 25, 2021;23(11):e33231. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Bulusu A, Segarra C, Khayat L. Analysis of COVID-19 vaccine uptake among people with underlying chronic conditions in 2022: a cross-sectional study. SSM Popul Health. Jun 2023;22:101422. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Painter EM, Ussery EN, Patel A, Hughes MM, Zell ER, Moulia DL, et al. Demographic characteristics of persons vaccinated during the first month of the COVID-19 vaccination program - United States, December 14, 2020-January 14, 2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. Feb 05, 2021;70(5):174-177. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Azcona EA, Kim BW, Vike NL, Bari S, Lalvani S, Stefanopoulos L, et al. Discrete, recurrent, and scalable patterns in human judgement underlie affective picture ratings. arXiv. Preprint posted online March 12, 2022. 2022.:2203.06448. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ]
Breiter HC, Block M, Blood AJ, Calder B, Chamberlain L, Lee N, et al. Redefining neuromarketing as an integrated science of influence. Front Hum Neurosci. Feb 12, 2014;8:1073. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Schneirla TC. An evolutionary and developmental theory of biphasic processes underlying approach and withdrawal. In: Jones MR, editor. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Lincoln, Nebraska. University of Nebraska Press; 1959;1-42.
Schneirla TC. Aspects of stimulation and organization in approach/withdrawal processes underlying vertebrate behavioral development. In: Advances in the Study of Behavior. Cambridge, MA. Academic Press; 1965;1-74.
Lewin K. Psycho-sociological problems of a minority group. J Personality. Mar 1935;3(3):175-187. [ CrossRef ]
Herrnstein RJ. Secondary reinforcement and rate of primary reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. Jan 1964;7(1):27-36. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Baum WM. On two types of deviation from the matching law: bias and undermatching. J Exp Anal Behav. Jul 1974;22(1):231-242. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Kim BW, Kennedy DN, Lehár J, Lee MJ, Blood AJ, Lee S, et al. Recurrent, robust and scalable patterns underlie human approach and avoidance. PLoS One. May 26, 2010;5(5):e10613. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Berridge KC, Robinson TE. The mind of an addicted brain: neural sensitization of wanting versus liking. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 1995;4(3):71-76. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ]
Montague PR. Free will. Curr Biol. Jul 22, 2008;18(14):R584-R585. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Dai X, Brendl CM, Ariely D. Wanting, liking, and preference construction. Emotion. Jun 2010;10(3):324-334. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Mas-Colell A, Whinston MD, Green JR. Microeconomic Theory. Oxford, UK. Oxford University Press; 1995.
Marshall A. Principles of Economics. Buffalo, NY. Prometheus Books; 1997.
Aharon I, Etcoff N, Ariely D, Chabris CF, O'Connor E, Breiter HC. Beautiful faces have variable reward value: fMRI and behavioral evidence. Neuron. Nov 08, 2001;32(3):537-551. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Viswanathan V, Lee S, Gilman JM, Kim BW, Lee N, Chamberlain L, et al. Age-related striatal BOLD changes without changes in behavioral loss aversion. Front Hum Neurosci. Apr 30, 2015;9:176. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Perlis RH, Holt DJ, Smoller JW, Blood AJ, Lee S, Kim BW, et al. Association of a polymorphism near CREB1 with differential aversion processing in the insula of healthy participants. Arch Gen Psychiatry. Aug 2008;65(8):882-892. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Gasic GP, Smoller JW, Perlis RH, Sun M, Lee S, Kim BW, et al. BDNF, relative preference, and reward circuitry responses to emotional communication. Am J Med Genet B Neuropsychiatr Genet. Sep 05, 2009;150B(6):762-781. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Makris N, Oscar-Berman M, Jaffin SK, Hodge SM, Kennedy DN, Caviness VS, et al. Decreased volume of the brain reward system in alcoholism. Biol Psychiatry. Aug 01, 2008;64(3):192-202. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Elman I, Ariely D, Mazar N, Aharon I, Lasko NB, Macklin ML, et al. Probing reward function in post-traumatic stress disorder with beautiful facial images. Psychiatry Res. Jun 30, 2005;135(3):179-183. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Strauss MM, Makris N, Aharon I, Vangel MG, Goodman J, Kennedy DN, et al. fMRI of sensitization to angry faces. Neuroimage. Jun 18, 2005;26(2):389-413. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Levy B, Ariely D, Mazar N, Chi W, Lukas S, Elman I. Gender differences in the motivational processing of facial beauty. Learn Motiv. May 2008;39(2):10.1016/j.lmot.2007.09.002. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Yamamoto R, Ariely D, Chi W, Langleben DD, Elman I. Gender differences in the motivational processing of babies are determined by their facial attractiveness. PLoS One. Jun 24, 2009;4(6):e6042. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Viswanathan V, Sheppard JP, Kim BW, Plantz CL, Ying H, Lee MJ, et al. A quantitative relationship between signal detection in attention and approach/avoidance behavior. Front Psychol. Feb 21, 2017;8:122. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Stefanopoulos L, Lalvani S, Kim BW, Vike NL, Bari S, Emanuel A, et al. Predicting depression history from a short reward/aversion task with behavioral economic features. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Biomedical and Health Informatics 2022. 2022. Presented at: ICBHI 2022; November 24-26, 2022; Concepcion, Chile.
Shannon CE, Weaver W. The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Urbana, IL. The University of Illinois Press; 1949.
Livengood SL, Sheppard JP, Kim BW, Malthouse EC, Bourne JE, Barlow AE, et al. Keypress-based musical preference is both individual and lawful. Front Neurosci. May 02, 2017;11:136. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Feynman R, Wilczek F. The Character of Physical Law. New York, NY. Modern Library; 1965.
Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica. Mar 1979;47(2):263-292. [ CrossRef ]
Markowitz H. Portfolio selection*. J Finance. Apr 30, 2012;7(1):77-91. [ CrossRef ]
Nagaya K. Why and under what conditions does loss aversion emerge? Jpn Psychol Res. Oct 15, 2021;65(4):379-398. [ CrossRef ]
Tversky A, Kahneman D. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science. Sep 27, 1974;185(4157):1124-1131. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Macoveanu J, Rowe JB, Hornboll B, Elliott R, Paulson OB, Knudsen GM, et al. Serotonin 2A receptors contribute to the regulation of risk-averse decisions. Neuroimage. Dec 2013;83:35-44. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Macoveanu J, Rowe JB, Hornboll B, Elliott R, Paulson OB, Knudsen GM, et al. Playing it safe but losing anyway--serotonergic signaling of negative outcomes in dorsomedial prefrontal cortex in the context of risk-aversion. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. Aug 2013;23(8):919-930. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Schultz W. Dopamine signals for reward value and risk: basic and recent data. Behav Brain Funct. Apr 23, 2010;6:24. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Manssuer L, Ding Q, Zhang Y, Gong H, Liu W, Yang R, et al. Risk and aversion coding in human habenula high gamma activity. Brain. Jun 01, 2023;146(6):2642-2653. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Thrailkill EA, DeSarno M, Higgins ST. Intersections between environmental reward availability, loss aversion, and delay discounting as potential risk factors for cigarette smoking and other substance use. Prev Med. Dec 2022;165(Pt B):107270. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Vrijen C, Hartman CA, Oldehinkel AJ. Reward-related attentional bias at age 16 predicts onset of depression during 9 years of follow-up. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. Mar 2019;58(3):329-338. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Hansen A, Turpyn CC, Mauro K, Thompson JC, Chaplin TM. Adolescent brain response to reward is associated with a bias toward immediate reward. Dev Neuropsychol. Aug 2019;44(5):417-428. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Morales S, Miller NV, Troller-Renfree SV, White LK, Degnan KA, Henderson HA, et al. Attention bias to reward predicts behavioral problems and moderates early risk to externalizing and attention problems. Dev Psychopathol. May 2020;32(2):397-409. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Wang S, Krajbich I, Adolphs R, Tsuchiya N. The role of risk aversion in non-conscious decision making. Front Psychol. 2012;3:50. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Chen X, Voets S, Jenkinson N, Galea JM. Dopamine-dependent loss aversion during effort-based decision-making. J Neurosci. Jan 15, 2020;40(3):661-670. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Trueblood JS, Sussman AB, O’Leary D. The role of risk preferences in responses to messaging about COVID-19 vaccine take-up. Soc Psychol Personal Sci. Mar 11, 2021;13(1):311-319. [ CrossRef ]
Wagner CE, Prentice JA, Saad-Roy CM, Yang L, Grenfell BT, Levin SA, et al. Economic and behavioral influencers of vaccination and antimicrobial use. Front Public Health. Dec 21, 2020;8:614113. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Hudson A, Montelpare WJ. Predictors of vaccine hesitancy: implications for COVID-19 public health messaging. Int J Environ Res Public Health. Jul 29, 2021;18(15):8054. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Horne Z, Powell D, Hummel JE, Holyoak KJ. Countering antivaccination attitudes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. Aug 18, 2015;112(33):10321-10324. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Benin AL, Wisler-Scher DJ, Colson E, Shapiro ED, Holmboe ES. Qualitative analysis of mothers' decision-making about vaccines for infants: the importance of trust. Pediatrics. May 2006;117(5):1532-1541. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Noyman-Veksler G, Greenberg D, Grotto I, Shahar G. Parents' malevolent personification of mass vaccination solidifies vaccine hesitancy. J Health Psychol. Oct 2021;26(12):2164-2172. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Lepinteur A, Borga LG, Clark AE, Vögele C, D'Ambrosio C. Risk aversion and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Health Econ. Aug 2023;32(8):1659-1669. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Becchetti L, Candio P, Salustri F. Vaccine uptake and constrained decision making: the case of Covid-19. Soc Sci Med. Nov 2021;289:114410. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Fernández A, García S, Galar M, Prati RC, Krawczyk B, Herrera F. Learning from Imbalanced Data Sets. Cham, Switzerland. Springer International Publishing; 2018.
Bari S, Vike NL, Stetsiv K, Woodward S, Lalvani S, Stefanopoulos L, et al. The prevalence of psychotic symptoms, violent ideation, and disruptive behavior in a population with SARS-CoV-2 infection: preliminary study. JMIR Form Res. Aug 16, 2022;6(8):e36444. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Woodward SF, Bari S, Vike N, Lalvani S, Stetsiv K, Kim BW, et al. Anxiety, post-COVID-19 syndrome-related depression, and suicidal thoughts and behaviors in COVID-19 survivors: cross-sectional study. JMIR Form Res. Oct 25, 2022;6(10):e36656. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Vike NL, Bari S, Stetsiv K, Woodward S, Lalvani S, Stefanopoulos L, et al. The Relationship Between a History of High-risk and Destructive Behaviors and COVID-19 Infection: Preliminary Study. JMIR Form Res. 2023;7:e40821. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Lee S, Lee MJ, Kim BW, Gilman JM, Kuster JK, Blood AJ, et al. The commonality of loss aversion across procedures and stimuli. PLoS One. Sep 22, 2015;10(9):e0135216. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Tversky A, Kahneman D. Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty. J Risk Uncertainty. Oct 1992;5(4):297-323. [ CrossRef ]
Sheppard JP, Livengood SL, Kim BW, Lee MJ, Blood AJ. Connecting prospect and portfolio theories through relative preference behavior. In: Proceedings of the 14th Annual Meeting on Society for NeuroEconomics. 2016. Presented at: SNE '16; August 28-30, 2016;102-103; Berlin, Germany. URL: https://staging.neuroeconomics.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/AbstractBookSNE2016.pdf
Zhang R, Brennan TJ, Lo AW. The origin of risk aversion. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. Dec 16, 2014;111(50):17777-17782. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Iacobucci D. Mediation analysis and categorical variables: the final frontier. J Consum Psychol. Apr 12, 2012;22(4):582-594. [ CrossRef ]
Lang PJ, Bradley MM, Cuthbert MM. Motivated attention: affect, activation and action. In: Lang PJ, Simons RF, Balaban MT, editors. Attention and Orienting: Sensory and Motivational Processes. Hillsdale, NJ. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1997;97-136.
Lang PJ, Bradley MM, Cuthbert BN. International affective picture system (IAPS): affective ratings of pictures and instruction manual. Technical Report A-8. University of Florida. 2008. URL: https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=755311 [accessed 2021-06-01]
Markowitz H. The Utility of Wealth. J Political Econ. Apr 1952;60(2):151-158. [ CrossRef ]
StataCorp. Stata statistical software: release 17. StataCorp LLC. College Station, TX. StataCorp LLC; 2021. URL: https://www.stata.com/company/ [accessed 2024-02-23]
Van Rossum G, Drake FL. Python 3 Reference Manual. Scotts Valley, CA. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform; 2009.
Pedregosa F, Varoquaux G, Gramfort A, Michel V, Thirion B, Grisel O, et al. Scikit-learn: machine learning in python. J Mach Learn Res. 2011;12(85):2825-2830. [ FREE Full text ]
Lemaître G, Nogueira F, Aridas CK. Imbalanced-learn: a python toolbox to tackle the curse of imbalanced datasets in machine learning. J Mach Learn Res. 2017;18(17):1-5. [ FREE Full text ]
R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. 2019. URL: https://www.r-project.org/ [accessed 2024-02-23]
David A. Kenny's homepage. David A. Kenny. URL: http://davidakenny.net/cm/mediate.htm [accessed 2024-02-22]
MacKinnon DP, Fairchild AJ, Fritz MS. Mediation analysis. Annu Rev Psychol. 2007;58:593-614. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
MacKinnon DP, Cheong J, Pirlott AG. Statistical mediation analysis. In: Cooper H, Camic PM, Long DL, Panter AT, Rindskopf D, Sher KJ, editors. APA Handbook of Research Methods in Psychology. Washington, DC. American Psychological Association; 2012;313-331.
Mackinnon DP. Introduction to Statistical Mediation Analysis. New York, NY. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2008.
Baron RM, Kenny DA. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1986;51(6):1173-1182. [ CrossRef ]
Hayes AF. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. New York, NY. Guilford Press; 2018.
Charpentier CJ, Aylward J, Roiser JP, Robinson OJ. Enhanced risk aversion, but not loss aversion, in unmedicated pathological anxiety. Biol Psychiatry. Jun 15, 2017;81(12):1014-1022. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Kahneman D, Tversky A. On the interpretation of intuitive probability: a reply to Jonathan Cohen. Cognition. Jan 1979;7(4):409-411. [ CrossRef ]
Mandrekar JN. Receiver operating characteristic curve in diagnostic test assessment. J Thorac Oncol. Sep 2010;5(9):1315-1316. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Watt J, Borhani R, Katsaggelos AK. Machine Learning Refined: Foundations, Algorithms, and Applications. Cambridge, UK. Cambridge University Press; 2016.
Viswanath K, Bekalu M, Dhawan D, Pinnamaneni R, Lang J, McLoud R. Individual and social determinants of COVID-19 vaccine uptake. BMC Public Health. Apr 28, 2021;21(1):818. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Judd CM, Kenny DA, McClelland GH. Estimating and testing mediation and moderation in within-subject designs. Psychol Methods. Jun 2001;6(2):115-134. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
Abdul-Mutakabbir JC, Casey S, Jews V, King A, Simmons K, Hogue MD, et al. A three-tiered approach to address barriers to COVID-19 vaccine delivery in the Black community. Lancet Glob Health. Jun 2021;9(6):e749-e750. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]

Abbreviations

Edited by A Mavragani; submitted 11.04.23; peer-reviewed by ME Visier Alfonso, L Lapp; comments to author 18.05.23; revised version received 08.08.23; accepted 10.01.24; published 18.03.24.

©Nicole L Vike, Sumra Bari, Leandros Stefanopoulos, Shamal Lalvani, Byoung Woo Kim, Nicos Maglaveras, Martin Block, Hans C Breiter, Aggelos K Katsaggelos. Originally published in JMIR Public Health and Surveillance (https://publichealth.jmir.org), 18.03.2024.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Public Health and Surveillance, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://publichealth.jmir.org, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

IMAGES

How to Publish a Research Paper: A Step-by-Step Guide
(PDF) HOW TO PUBLISH A RESEARCH ARTICLE
5 Tips for how to publish a research paper
How to easily publish a research paper in journals 2023
Easy Steps to Publish a Project Paper for Students
Paper Publishing Process » Procedure to Publish in Peer-reviewed Journal

VIDEO

Publish Research Paper In Reputed Journals
How to publish a research paper
Workshop topic "How to publish your research paper in top tier journal"
Online Workshop on Research Paper Writing & Publishing Day 1
Research Paper Outline
How to search Elsevier Interdisciplinary journal with IMPACT FACTOR and publish for free #elsevier

COMMENTS

How to Publish a Research Paper
Publishing a research paper in a journal is a crucial step in disseminating scientific knowledge and contributing to the field. Here are the general steps to follow: Choose a research topic: Select a topic of your interest and identify a research question or problem that you want to investigate. Conduct a literature review to identify the gaps ...
Publish with Elsevier: Step by step
4. Track your paper. 5. Share and promote. 1. Find a journal. Find out the journals that could be best suited for publishing your research. For a comprehensive list of Elsevier journals check our Journal Catalogue. You can also match your manuscript using the JournalFinder tool, then learn more about each journal.
How to Publish a Research Paper: Your Step-by-Step Guide
To publish a research paper, ask a colleague or professor to review your paper and give you feedback. Once you've revised your work, familiarize yourself with different academic journals so that you can choose the publication that best suits your paper. Make sure to look at the "Author's Guide" so you can format your paper according to the ...
How to publish your research
The first step in publishing a research paper should always be selecting the journal you want to publish in. Choosing your target journal before you start writing means you can tailor your work to build on research that's already been published in that journal. This can help editors to see how a paper adds to the 'conversation' in their ...
How to Publish a Research Paper: A Step-by-Step Guide
Step 2: Finding the Right Journal. Understanding how to publish a research paper involves selecting the appropriate journal for your work. This step is critical for successful publication, and you should take several factors into account when deciding which journal to apply for: Conduct thorough research to identify journals that specialise in ...
How to Write and Publish a Research Paper for a Peer ...
Communicating research findings is an essential step in the research process. Often, peer-reviewed journals are the forum for such communication, yet many researchers are never taught how to write a publishable scientific paper. In this article, we explain the basic structure of a scientific paper and describe the information that should be included in each section. We also identify common ...
7 steps to publishing in a scientific journal
Sun and Linton (2014), Hierons (2016) and Craig (2010) offer useful discussions on the subject of "desk rejections.". 4. Make a good first impression with your title and abstract. The title and abstract are incredibly important components of a manuscript as they are the first elements a journal editor sees.
How to Write and Publish a Research Paper in 7 Steps
This post will discuss 7 steps to the successful publication of your research paper: Check whether your research is publication-ready. Choose an article type. Choose a journal. Construct your paper. Decide the order of authors. Check and double-check. Submit your paper. 1.
How to publish an article?
Preparation. - Find the right journal for your manuscript. - The Springer Journal Selector. - Manuscript preparation (reference styles, artwork guidelines, etc.) 3. After publication. If your article has been published, the following topics are important for you: Abstracting & Indexing. Online access to my article.
How to Write and Publish a Research Paper for a Peer-Reviewed Journal
The introduction section should be approximately three to five paragraphs in length. Look at examples from your target journal to decide the appropriate length. This section should include the elements shown in Fig. 1. Begin with a general context, narrowing to the specific focus of the paper.
How to publish your paper
A. Yes, instead of giving the volume and page number, you can give the paper's DOI at the end of the citation. For example, Nature papers should be cited in the form; Author (s) Nature advance ...
PDF How to write and publish a paper
Report results fully & honestly, as pre-specified. Text (story), Tables (evidence), Figures (highlights) Report primary outcomes first. Give confidence intervals for main results. Report essential summary statistics. Leave out non-essential tables and figures; these can be included as supplementary files. Don't start discussion here.
Preparing and Publishing a Scientific Manuscript
B ACKGROUND. The publication of original research in a peer-reviewed and indexed journal is the ultimate and most important step toward the recognition of any scientific work.However, the process starts long before the write-up of a manuscript. The journal in which the author wishes to publish his/her work should be chosen at the time of conceptualization of the scientific work based on the ...
Writing for publication: Structure, form, content, and journal
Beyond this, the title should indicate the research methodology and topic of the paper. The abstract should provide a summary of the objective, methods, results, and significance of the research. Most researchers are likely to find published papers through an electronic search (either via subject databases, or search engines such as Google).
How To Write And Publish A Scientific Manuscript
A clinician should continuously strive to increase knowledge by reviewing and critiquing papers, thoughtfully considering how to integrate new data into practice. This is the essence of evidence-based medicine (EBM).[1] When new clinical queries arise, one should seek answers in the published literature. The ability to read a scientific or medical manuscript remains vitally important ...
Publishing
You can publish your research data, code, software, presentations, working papers, and other supporting documents and documentation open access as well. In fact, in some cases, your funders might require it. Sharing these other research instruments not only advances knowledge and science, but also can help increase your impact and citation rates.
How to Publish a Research Paper: A Complete Guide
Here's a list of steps to keep in mind before publishing a research paper: Step 1: Identifying the Right Journal. Step 2: Preparing Step 3: Your Manuscript. Step 3: Conducting a Thorough Review. Step 4: Writing a Compelling Cover Letter. Step 5: Navigating the Peer Review Process. Step 6: Handling Rejections.
How to publish a research paper?
1. Your paper: Must be current and must follow the six steps of Scientific research. ( problem, question, hypothesis, methodology, results, conclusion and so on) 2. Make sure to ask a scholar to ...
How to Write a Research Paper for Publication: Outline, Format & Types
Objective #1 (e.g. summarize the paper, proposed methods, merits, and limitations) Objective #2 (e.g. urge other researchers to test the proposed methods and show recommendations for further research) After creating the outline, you can fill out the details and start writing your first draft.
How to Write a Research Paper
Conduct preliminary research. Develop a thesis statement. Create a research paper outline. Write a first draft of the research paper. Write the introduction. Write a compelling body of text. Write the conclusion. The second draft. The revision process.
Search
Find the research you need | With 160+ million publications, 1+ million questions, and 25+ million researchers, this is where everyone can access science
Research Publish Journals
About Us. Research Publish Journals is a worldwide open access peer reviewed online International Journal publishing Organisation. It is committed to bring out the highest excellence by publishing unique, novel research articles of upcoming authors as well as renowned scholars. It belongs to an intellectual group of Researchers, Scholars ...
Millions of research papers at risk of disappearing from the Internet
The findings, published in the Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication on 24 January 1, indicate that systems to preserve papers online have failed to keep pace with the growth of ...
Find a journal
Elsevier Journal Finder helps you find journals that could be best suited for publishing your scientific article. Journal Finder uses smart search technology and field-of-research specific vocabularies to match your paper's abstract to scientific journals.
Research Roundup: How the Pandemic Changed Management
These papers were published between March 2020 and July 2023 in top journals in management and applied psychology. ... Her research interests include organizational citizenship behaviors ...
Generalized fear after acute stress is caused by change in neuronal
To understand the mechanisms underlying generalization of fear responses, we studied contextual fear. Pairing of an unconditioned stimulus (US; foot shock) and the conditioning stimulus (CS) leads to conditioned fear when testing occurs later in the same context (context A) (2, 13, 14).Increasing the intensity of the US produces fear generalization even when testing occurs later in a new ...
MM1: Methods, Analysis & Insights from Multimodal LLM Pre-training
Download a PDF of the paper titled MM1: Methods, Analysis & Insights from Multimodal LLM Pre-training, by Brandon McKinzie and 29 other authors. ... compared to other published pre-training results. Further, we show that the image encoder together with image resolution and the image token count has substantial impact, while the vision-language ...
8-hour time-restricted eating linked to a 91% higher risk of
The research authors have shared their full poster presentation for updated details about their research abstract. Please see the digital file attached, under additional resources below, for these details. ... The findings are considered preliminary until published as a full manuscript in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. The Association ...
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
Background: Despite COVID-19 vaccine mandates, many chose to forgo vaccination, raising questions about the psychology underlying how judgment affects these choices. Research shows that reward and aversion judgments are important for vaccination choice; however, no studies have integrated such cognitive science with machine learning to predict COVID-19 vaccine uptake.
Stable Diffusion 3: Research Paper
Key Takeaways: Today, we're publishing our research paper that dives into the underlying technology powering Stable Diffusion 3.. Stable Diffusion 3 outperforms state-of-the-art text-to-image generation systems such as DALL·E 3, Midjourney v6, and Ideogram v1 in typography and prompt adherence, based on human preference evaluations.

How to Publish a Research Paper – Step by Step Guide

How to Publish a Research Paper

How to Choose Journal for Research Paper Publication

List of Journals for Research Paper Publications

List of Conferences for Research Paper Publications

How to Publish a Research Paper in Journal

How to Publish a Research Paper for Students

How to Publish a Research Paper for Free

Journals and Conferences for Free Research Paper publications

Importance of Research Paper Publication

Advantages of Research Paper Publication

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

You may also like

Research Paper Conclusion – Writing Guide and...

Appendices – Writing Guide, Types and Examples

How to Cite Research Paper – All Formats and...

Delimitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Scope of the Research – Writing Guide and...

Research Contribution – Thesis Guide

How to Write and Publish Your Research in a Journal

Choosing a Journal

Things You Should Know

Expert Q&A

About This Article

Reader Success Stories

Did this article help you?

Featured Articles

Trending Articles

Watch Articles

How to Publish a Research Paper: A Step-by-Step Guide

Jordan Kruszynski

Understanding the Publishing Process

Step 1: Preparing Your Research Paper

Step 2: Finding the Right Journal

Step 3: Crafting a Strong Manuscript

Step 4: Navigating the Peer-Review Process

Step 5: Submitting Your Paper

Step 6: Dealing with Rejections and Revising Your Paper

Final Thoughts

Table of Contents

Behind the Scenes: What Does a Research Assistant Do?

How to Write a Research Paper Introduction: Hook, Line, and Sinker

Discover more from Audemic: Access any academic research via audio

How to Write and Publish a Research Paper for a Peer-Reviewed Journal

Cite this article

Similar content being viewed by others

How to Choose the Right Journal

The Point Is…to Publish?

Some Opinions on the Review Process of Research Papers Destined for Publication

Introduction

Select a Target Journal Early in the Writing Process

Identify Author Roles Early in the Process

Structure of the Introduction Section

Methods Section

Results Section

Discussion Section

Follow the Journal’s Author Guidelines

Data Availability

Acknowledgments

Code Availability

Author information

Corresponding author

Ethics declarations

Additional information

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

About this article

Share this article

How to Write and Publish a Research Paper in 7 Steps

1. Check Whether Your Research Is Publication-Ready

2. Choose An Article Type

3. Choose a Journal

4. Construct Your Paper

4.1 The Title

4.2 The Abstract

4.3 Keywords

4.4 Introduction

4.5 Methods

4.6 Results