How to write and publish a research paper in physical education: a step-by-step guide for the first time

Cómo escribir y publicar un artículo científico en educación física: guía paso a paso para la primera vez

Introduction

There is a wealth of information (books, articles, blog entries, posts) on how to write and publish a research paper. In this essay, the authors present a selected compilation of those general recommendations and specific suggestions that exist in the literature, while at the same time exemplifying specific questions as a step-by-step guide to facilitate the consecutive processes of (1) scientific writing and (2) publication.

Facing, for the first time, a blank page to write a scientific article can represent, in many cases, a truly challenging situation. Not having the necessary tools and skills may even mean giving up or not even trying. Although scientific writing presents a fairly well-defined generic pattern in terms of general structure and specific content of each of the sections that compose it, it is not an easy task. Writing is an activity that needs dedication, time and effort. It also requires an initial motivation that can overcome the barriers and obstacles you will encounter. Although this feat is not without difficulty, if the title of the article and the summary caught your attention, and you surpassed the threshold of interest necessary to get this far, that means it is time to start with this achievable challenge. We invite you to this brief but intense journey through the 'life' of an article from birth to publication.

What is a Scientific Article (Research Paper)?

It is a written and published report that explains the results and new contributions of a research study, discussing the findings in relation to previous existing knowledge (Day, 2005).

What are They for?

The UNESCO Guide for the writing of scientific articles for publication (1983) states that 'the essential purpose of a scientific article is to communicate the results of research, ideas and discussions in a clear, concise and direct manner' (p. 2). Therefore, the publication of a scientific article represents the final stage of the research process (Villagrán & Harris, 2009), i.e., it is when the new findings are made known in an objective way (Salamanca, 2020).

Research and publication are two activities that are directly related. Publishing is the means by which advancements can be incorporated into scientific knowledge (Lam, 2016). It is the means by which new findings can be communicated, results reported and made available to the community. It is also worth highlighting the formative function (García, 2011) with which they comply, improving the teaching practice of physical education (PE) teachers through innovative proposals and stimulating professional growth (Piedrahita-Mejía & Valencia-Gómez, 2019). Therefore, the information from a scientific article is not only intended for other researchers, but acquires its true meaning and significance when it serves for teaching practice. In fact, this should be the main goal because, otherwise, it would be of little use.

General Recommendations for Scientific Writing

One of the most important basic premises before starting to write is 'to have something (important-interesting) to tell'. Although this may seem obvious, it is worth starting from this initial reflection. In this sense, we consider very accurate the eloquent statement of Murillo et al. (2017) when trying to write a good article: 'there are no shortcuts' (p. 6). Without solid research, a good article cannot be produced.

Another aspect of interest to consider is that articles are written 'for other people', i.e., returning to the conceptualization of what a scientific article is, the true meaning lies in communicating with others through a piece of writing. Therefore, from the very beginning, it is crucial to stop and think about how I am going to transmit and share my 'story' so that it can be understood by the recipients.

Based on these preliminary ideas, we present below a selected compilation of 14 general recommendations, mostly from other scientific fields, which we consider highly transferable and applicable to our area of knowledge:

1. Accuracy, clarity and brevity (Santesteban-Echarri & Núñez-Morales, 2017).

2. Thoroughly review previous existing literature to ensure the novelty/originality of the research (Ecarnot et al., 2015).

3. Have a structured planning for writing (Arias-Carrión, 2024).

4. Begin with the end in mind (Hoogenboom & Manske, 2012).

5. Choose the message well and put yourself in the place of who is going to read it (Villagrán & Harris, 2009).

6. Formulate solid messages and arguments avoiding the unnecessary (Gallardo, 2020).

7. Maintain a consistent narrative (Arias-Carrión, 2024).

8. Define very specifically the purpose of the research (Atzen & Bluemke, 2022).

9. Disclose new data and results in a straightforward and logical manner (Arias-Carrión, 2024).

10. Present a clear, relevant, and engaging story within a structured framework (Arias-Carrión, 2024).

11. Demonstrate utility on how your research contributes and helps to better understand some aspect (Iskander et al., 2018).

12. When you consider your article ready, share it with colleagues and receive feedback (Busse & August, 2021).

13. Be patient and persistent (Goh & Bourne, 2020).

14. Practice, practice, practice (Peterson et al., 2018).

The prestigious journal Nature offered some advice on how to write a 'first-class' article ('How to produce a first-class paper that will get published, stand out from the crowd and pull in plenty of readers') through interviews with a panel of experts. Two of the most salient core ideas were as follows (Gewin, 2018):

(1) Keep your message clear.‘Think about the message you want to give readers. If that is not clear, misinterpretations may arise later. And a clear message is even more important when there is a multidisciplinary group of authors, which is increasingly common. I encourage groups to sit down together in person and seek consensus, not only on the main message, but on the selection of data, visual presentation and information needed to convey a strong message. The most important information should be in the main text. To avoid distraction, authors should put additional data in supplementary material. Countless manuscripts are rejected because the discussion section is so weak that it is obvious the writer does not clearly understand the existing literature. Writers should put their results in a global context to demonstrate what makes those results significant or original. There is a narrow line between speculation and evidence-based conclusions. An author can speculate in the discussion - but not too much. When the discussion is all speculation, it is not good because it is not rooted in the author's experience. In the conclusion, include a one or two sentence statement about what research you plan to do in the future and what else needs to be explored' (Angel Borja).

(2) Create a logical framework. ‘Structure is paramount. If you don't get the structure right, you have no hope. It’s crucial to focus your paper on a single key message, which you communicate in the title. Everything in the paper should logically and structurally support that idea. You have to guide the naive reader to the point at which they are ready to absorb what you did. As a writer, you need to detail the problem. I won’t know why I should care about your experiment until you tell me why I should' (Brett Mensh).

Structure and Organization of a Scientific Article

Although the anatomy of a scientific article is quite rigid in terms of the sections that compose it, there is room to give meaning to the content that is expected to be found in each of these parts. The writing of a scientific article is not as open as a press release in terms of creative possibilities, but the common thread from the introduction to the conclusion must always be present, so it also has the characteristics of a 'story to tell'; be careful! always without losing rigor.

It could be said that the basic structure of a generic research article has already been invented and it will be very rare to deviate from this arrangement. Figure 1 shows this basic structure. We invite you to search for a scientific article in PE on a topic of your interest in Google Scholar® in order to identify these sections.

This IMRyD model (Introduction, Method, Results and Discussion) constitutes a standard format in the academic field. Originating mainly in Physics and Medicine journals, it is currently applied in the scientific fields of Humanities and Social Sciences (Codina, 2022), including some variants that allow a better adjustment to both the object of study and the methodology used (quantitative, qualitative or mixed). In any case, and although the essential components do not vary, we recommend reviewing the specific rules of each journal to adapt our article as required in each case.

As a practical recommendation, although the order of presentation of the information in an article follows these sections, this does not necessarily imply that we should prepare them chronologically in this way. In fact, it is more common to choose a writing order where the method and results are addressed first, followed by the introduction and discussion (Santesteban-Echarri & Núñez-Morales, 2017). Similarly, in more advanced stages of the manuscript, it is also common to 'jump' and 'touch up' small details in different sections to find the maximum level of coherence and agreement in the general thread.

Step-by-step Guide to Scientific Writing

However, prior to the central structure, there are other important elements that are also used to index the articles in the databases: Title, Abstract and Keywords.

Title

Will any title do, or should it be carefully thought out? The title is the first thing you see and read. It is the illuminated sign at the front door. It is the business card with the welcome message, and it must make a good impression. Notice if its level of importance is so high, that after this first impact, people will decide whether to continue reading or not. Therefore, finding a good title for the article is undoubtedly something that deserves (a lot) of time.

Precisely on this question of how to give an attractive title to an article to attract attention, and making a play on words, Morales-Castillo et al. (2014) found a good 'hook' for it by titling their article 'How to make the title of an article a hook for readers?' It goes without saying that other possible alternatives of the type 'The title of an article', would provoke a more 'indifferent' effect. Along the same lines, Hernández and Moreno-Martínez (2020) also managed to provide the necessary 'spark' with the article entitled 'Science is also needed to write a title'. Indeed, the title of an article should above all be clear, but, as far as possible, it would be convenient if it could incorporate some small dose of 'hook' that could enhance interest in its reading. As Day (2005) points out, a good title will be a prelude to a good article.

In addition to being brief, concise, concrete, precise and 'straight to the point', it should anticipate, as far as possible, information regarding the main results and conclusions. For example, for studies of a cross-sectional nature: 'Positive relationships between cooperation and academic performance in PE' versus 'Cooperation and academic performance in PE'. In the first case, the title already 'discovers' from the outset what the findings are, informing about the directionality of the relationships. However, the second option presents an exclusively descriptive character of the variables analyzed, without 'advancing' the connections found in the data. For example, for studies of a quasi-experimental nature: 'Cooperative learning increases intrinsic motivation after a three-month intervention' versus 'Effect of cooperative learning on motivation...', or 'Influence, incidence, impact... of cooperative learning on...'. In the first case, the effect observed after the implementation of the model is reported, while in the other cases it is only indicated that the objective was to analyze the impact, but it is not known whether it was positive or negative.

On the other hand, however, titles that respond to a more descriptive and general idea are a good fit for research projects that have not yet been started or are intended to be developed, since for this particular casuistry the results obtained are not yet known.

Whether it is an article, project or presentation to an audience, in any case, you should keep in mind that it will be the first thing they will read and hear, so it is worth thinking about what title could best represent your study and make it more attractive. Capturing the attention of the reading public is also part of the process. Precisely for this reason, it is advisable to share possible titles not only with professional colleagues, but also with friends and family (even if they are not familiar with the research) in order to get feedback on their impressions.

Likewise, and prior to publication, it will also be the first thing that the magazine's editorial team will see and read, so once again the title becomes especially (or doubly) relevant. It is highly recommended to 'think over' the final composition of those 15 words (approximately) placed at the beginning of our article. For these reasons, it is common for authors to evaluate different alternatives and not close their final proposal until the end. In fact, it could be said that although the title is the first thing that appears, perhaps (very probably) it is the last thing that is written.

According to Bavdekar (2016) there are different types of titles that can be used in scientific publications (see Table 1). In any case, it is recommended that it does not include abbreviations or very technical expressions that make it difficult to pay attention to them.

Abstract

If we said earlier that the title is the presentation card, the summary is the welcome letter, and forms an inseparable tandem with the title as an 'initial meeting'. After the title, it will probably be the second thing that the reading public sees, and also, prior to possible publication, the editorial team. From this impact, people will decide whether to read more of the article, some sections, or even the entire article. Similarly, the editorial team will assess the quality level of the manuscript to decide whether to initiate (or not) an improvement process which, in this case, will also include reading it in its entirety.

It should also meet the same qualifying adjectives as the title, in terms of brevity and 'straightforwardness'. We find in the literature, fundamentally two types of summaries: structured (sections Figure 1) and unstructured (free format). However, in both cases the quality of the information responds to the same essence, i.e., to present the fundamental elements of our study. Through very specific sentences, you should try to refer to the central points of your research. The abstract is a 'small version' of the article, where the main information appears in a compact and condensed form (López-Leyva, 2013).

Keywords

The terms already used in the title should not be reiterated here, thus expanding and facilitating correct indexing in databases. Recovering some previous examples, for an article that includes in the title 'cooperative learning in physical education', it would not be advisable to include as keywords 'cooperative learning' or 'physical education', but other more generic ones such as: 'teaching', 'learning', 'methodology', 'school'. As a general suggestion, if the title accurately reflects the essential terms of the study, the key words try to represent what are, in a more global sense, the fundamental pillars in which our research is inserted. Although this may seem a minor issue, it is certainly relevant to the extent that in the search processes in databases (e.g., Web of Science®, Scopus® or Dialnet®), they play a determining role, together with those of the title, to make our publication more easily identifiable and 'salvageable' for the rest of the scientific community and professionals in the field of PE.

Introduction

Two key aspects could characterize a quality introduction. First, it emphasizes the concrete presentation of the results found in the previous literature, i.e., a very clear (and usually brief) presentation of the previous background. This idea is also referred to as the 'state of the art'. For example, if in our article an investigation was carried out on how the teacher's interpersonal style influences the student's more self-determined motivation during PE classes, it would be convenient to start by briefly exposing the theories that support the mentioned constructs (e.g., Self-Determination Theory). In the introduction, the important thing is not so much to elaborate a complete theoretical framework (i.e., to explain very carefully the postulates of Self-Determination Theory, to continue with the example), but rather to make a precise and concrete review of previous and similar research that has been carried out.

Secondly, and integrated with the previous idea, the gap or lacuna to be addressed in the literature should be identified, explicitly including the aspect to be studied, making it very clear what the purpose of the research is. In this sense, systematic reviews of the literature can be of great help because they synthesize what is known about a specific aspect of our subject, while identifying which aspects still need to be addressed. For example, if your article is about pedagogical models in PE, turning to existing literature reviews (Fernandez-Rio & Iglesias, 2024), can be helpful for this.

In other words, the first part of the introduction begins in a general way by identifying the frameworks on which the research is going to be based, going into the gaps that will be deepened in the second part of this section and that you will try to overcome with the research to be presented.

Finally, it is customary to place the research question, objective(s) or hypothesis (as appropriate) in the final part of the introduction, sometimes even located as a subsection.

Method

The method is one of the most important and sensitive parts of the article. Important because it helps to understand what has been done to arrive at the findings that will follow. Sensitive because it is here that if there is a procedural error, the rest of the article will be incorrect. Precisely, the best general guidance that can be given in this section is to think about writing it in a way that allows other researchers (or even ourselves in the future) to reiterate the experiment or intervention described (Foong-May, 2014). The (easily) 'replicable' character is an indicator of quality.

It is usually structured in four subsections: Sample or Participants, Instrument(s), Procedure, and Data Analysis. Let's look at the thrust of each below.

The subsection on the sample (participants) describes the characteristics of the sample participating in our research. For example, information on size, age, experience... should also refer to specific aspects that could be of interest for a more 'accurate' interpretation of the data. For example, if I propose a study to try to improve intrinsic motivation through an intervention based on Cooperative Learning, it would be relevant to know both the previous experience of the teacher with this pedagogical model and the previous experience of the students with this methodological approach. Therefore, an adequate description of the sample will depend on what we need to know, so that the data obtained do not later 'distort' what we intend to find out. Other aspects related to informed consent and approval of the study by the ethics committee are usually also part of this section.

The subsection on instruments includes information on how the data were obtained. All instruments used and the target variables on which data collection took place are mentioned. For example, if a research study analyses integrated regulation during a learning situation related to basketball initiation, this section will briefly describe the scale used, which, continuing with the example, could be the Perceived Locus of Causality Scale 2 (PLOC-2; Ferriz et al., 2015). For qualitative studies, all the techniques used to collect data should be included. For example, a recent article by Brock et al. (2023) specifies that personal reflective notebooks, focus groups and individual interviews were carried out, including some example questions, number of groups and intervention time, among other relevant issues.

In the subsection on the procedure, descriptive information about the process carried out is usually included in a chronological manner. If it is a research that includes a real intervention (for example, the application of a Pedagogical Model in PE classes), the most notable points should be presented, such as, for example, the basic structure of the classes, when the pre-test and post-test were carried out, or how fidelity in implementation was ensured (Iglesias and Fernandez-Rio, 2024).

Finally, it is also common to include a subsection on data analysis. It should refer to all the statistical procedures used, in the case of quantitative research or discourse coding, in the case of qualitative studies, that were carried out to break down the results. Here it would also be interesting to add the software used (if any).

Results

They should be presented in a ‘cold’ manner and without interpretations. They are usually accompanied by tables and/or figures, graphs, diagrams, etc., which offer valuable information about the data obtained and facilitate a clear visualization in the ‘vast sea of data, instead of immersing the reading public in an ocean of figures and texts’ (Arias-Carrión, 2024, p. 5). Comments on the tables should not include assessments regarding the reason for the data. They are simply shown in a neutral manner, without making value judgments. Some possible examples could be: ‘descriptive statistics show average values between four and five’ (we do not indicate here what this could be due to), ‘girls present significantly higher values compared to boys’ (we do not explain here possible reasons for this difference).

Sometimes a serious error can be made if the appropriate terminology is not used to present the results. This will depend on the type of research design used. If it is a quasi-experimental study, it would be correct to use statements that include terms such as, for example, ‘impact’, ‘effect’, ‘cause’ or synonyms. In the case of association studies between variables, expressions containing terms such as, for example, ‘relationship between’, ‘connection’, ‘correlation’ or synonyms will be used. Sometimes this same error can also be made when interpreting the data in the section relating to the discussion, or even when trying to draw final conclusions and practical implications.

Discussion

In this section, the data obtained are compared with findings from existing literature. Now is the time to check whether the results obtained are in line (or not) with what is known so far. This is perhaps the most difficult part of writing, where interpretations must be guided by data and evidence. The discussion ‘acts as a bridge that connects raw data with reasoned conclusions, framing those results within the global landscape of the field of study’ (Arias-Carrión, 2024, p. 4).

It is common to start this section by recalling what the purpose of the study was, in order to subsequently establish a dialogue between the findings found and previous evidence. For this section, phrases and statements such as: ‘The data suggest that PE should be approached from a more democratic and reflective perspective…’, ‘Perhaps these findings could be explaining the key aspects of a more inclusive PE…’, ‘In line with previous studies, the benefits found after the intervention…’, ‘Unlike previous research, these data seem to reflect…’ are considered quite pertinent.

It is also common to end this section by referring to the strengths, limitations and future research that could be derived towards a future agenda. The strengths should highlight the importance of having carried out the study, that is, they should indicate the relevance of the research carried out, as well as the interest in advancing knowledge. Another important point for reflection is to identify and recognise what the limitations of the study were (for example, the size of the sample used, the context, the methodology used…). Based on this analysis of possible ‘weaknesses’, it would be appropriate to state some challenges for future research, outlining some options and paths to continue advancing in the understanding of the aspects linked to PE quality.

Conclusions

Sometimes they are included as the final part of the discussion. Other times they are presented in a separate section (this will depend on the specific rules of each journal). It is the main message of the study. It is the essence. It is the contribution. It is what we communicate as ‘new’. An important general recommendation is that the conclusions of a research study ‘cannot go beyond the data’, but neither can they reiterate the results or return to the discussion. For example, in a descriptive study with PE teachers it could be stated: ‘Teacher training in new technologies should be promoted given that the majority of the teachers surveyed declare that they are useful but lack knowledge of their use in the classroom…’ Sometimes they are also accompanied by some practical implications that are derived from the study. For example: ‘teacher intervention in PE should contemplate active participation…’

References

In most cases, the use of APA 7.0 standards will be the most common in PE articles. However, this will depend on the journal you choose to publish your study in. It is recommended to carefully review the standards, both for correct citations throughout the text and for the final list of bibliographical references used. Check and ensure that all citations correspond to the final list of references. Likewise, verify that all references are reflected at some point in the text in the form of a citation. This lack of (double) concordance is a common error.

Acknowledgements

Show your gratitude to those people and/or institutions that made it possible to turn your research idea into a rigorous study. If you have obtained funding, please indicate this as well.

The Process of Submission and Communication With the Scientific Journal

Once the article is considered ready for submission, the phase of adapting the manuscript to the specific (formal) requirements of the journal begins. Although each journal has specific rules and, therefore, it is difficult to offer general recommendations, it is possible to point out frequent differences in the maximum number of words allowed, the format and number of words allowed in the abstract, the citation format or where to place the tables and/or figures. Even so, we again insist on the need to review these rules each time a new submission is to be made.

Once the manuscript is ready to be sent, it will be necessary to register on the journal's computer platform. After completing this process, the submission of the article will begin. All journals present a more or less similar pattern. It will be necessary to attach, at least, the original anonymized document (depending on the journal's rules, the original document with cover and complete author data, figures in separate files, supplementary tables, etc.) must also be uploaded, as well as entering the complete data of the signatories (name and surname, affiliation, ORCID and email). Once the submission has been made, it is time to wait.

The first phase of review will be carried out by the journal's administration, who will check that the manuscript follows the established standards. Next, it will be sent to the editorial team for a first scientific review, that is, to check the novelty, relevance and possible impact of the article if it is accepted. They will then make the decision to reject the article or send it for anonymous review. In the first case, we will receive an email confirming the rejection and, in the second, we will not receive anything (usually). Typically, the journal’s platform will provide information about the status of the article and, again in most cases, you will be able to see the change from ‘under review by the editorial team’ to ‘under review’.

The reviewers will make specific comments on the work and will recommend to the editorial team: (1) reject the article, (2) request major changes, (3) request minor changes or (4) accept it for publication. The editorial team will then communicate its decision to the authors via email. If modifications are required, the authors will have a deadline set by the journal to make them and/or respond to the requested comments. To do so, the authors will copy these comments into a new document and make the relevant changes to the original submission. In the new document, they will respond to each of the comments, indicating, in each case, the modifications made as a result. It is recommended that the tone of the conversation and debate during the process of improving the quality of the manuscript always be respectful and grateful for the review work. Once the review is finished, the documents will be sent to the journal. This process will be repeated as many times as necessary, until the article is considered ready to be published. After receiving the long-awaited email informing about the acceptance of the article, the publication process will begin. The authors will receive the formatted article to check that everything is correct. Once the journal has obtained the approval, it will be published. We present a summary of this entire process in Figure 2.

In addition to this general process, some specific PE journals have presented some concrete recommendations and suggestions. For example, for the journal Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, the editorial team (Kirk et al., 2014) shared guidelines in line with what was presented here. Similarly, also for the Journal of Teaching in Physical Education (Richards et al., 2021, 2023).

Final Comment

While reading about how to write and publish a scientific article is useful, perhaps the most important thing is to practice. For an initial contact, some prior guidance can be of great help in taking the first step and, together with reading previously published articles, these can be two important precursor activities before facing a blank page for the first time. However, while recognizing the value and usefulness of this prior preparation, the key is to dive into the challenge, face it, get to work, and practice a lot. It could be said here that 'you learn to cook in the kitchen', making mistakes as in any learning process and gradually improving your skills.

Some experienced people may be more skilled when writing their new article, but each study is a new 'story' to tell, constitutes a new challenge, and requires an effort independent of previous experiences. Therefore, on all occasions, although more so at the beginning, it is advisable to re-position all the keys related to how to write and publish an article in order to face the process with the greatest guarantees of success.

Finally, we believe it is important not to hide the fact that writing and publishing an article is a tough task with a certain level of complexity. Although it involves time, dedication, and effort, it is achievable for anyone who sets their mind to it and brings great personal and group satisfaction, as it is a way to share with others... Are you ready to give it a try...?

Ethics Committee Statement

Not applicable as the article is a theoretical essay.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Funding

This research received no funding as the article is a theoretical essay.

Authors' Contribution

Conceptualization: D.I., P. S-G., M.J. S-D & J. F-R.; Methodology: D.I., P. S-G., M.J. S-D & J. F-R.; Software: D.I., P. S-G., M.J. S-D & J. F-R.; Validation: D.I., P. S-G., M.J. S-D & J. F-R.; Formal Analysis: D.I., P. S-G., M.J. S-D & J. F-R.; Data Curation: D.I., P. S-G., M.J. S-D & J. F-R.; Writing – Original Draft: D.I., P. S-G., M.J. S-D & J. F-R.; Writing – Review & Editing: D.I., P. S-G., M.J. S-D & J. F-R.; Project Administration: D.I., P. S-G., M.J. S-D & J. F-R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable. The article does not present empirical data.

References

Author notes

* Correspondence: Damián Iglesias, diglesia@unex.es

Additional information

Short title: How to Write and Publish a Research Paper in Physical Education

How to cite this article: Iglesias, D., Saiz-González, P., Sierra-Díaz, M. J., & Fernandez-Rio, J. (2024). How to write and publish a research paper in physical education: a step-by-step guide for the first time. Cultura, Ciencia y Deporte, 19(61), 2238. https://doi.org/10.12800/ccd.v19i61.2238