Layout of an Academic Research Paper - Article Example

Stainton, Johnnie E. Johnson, and Edward P. Borodzicz. The layout of an Academic Research Paper is aimed at presenting information that can be used to understand the underlying problem or area of investigation. In order to do so, it is pertinent that a generalized format is followed by the authors of a research paper, which in turn enables the reader to interpret and understand the contents in a meaningful and comprehensive manner (Bhakar & Mehta, 2011). A generally accepted layout comprises of following parts: Abstract: A concise statement of the purpose, methodology, conclusion, and recommendations of the research work.

Introduction: A background to the research from which rationale for conducting a research work emerges and leads to research aim and objectives. Detailed Theoretical Framework and Review of Past Works: A review of theoretical frameworks and conclusions reached by researchers in the past in similar research areas. Research Methodology: Methods adopted to conduct the research along with their suitability and practicality while keeping in view the research aim. Findings and Discussion: Detailed analysis and presentation of findings, which are then related back to the literature reviewed earlier, so as to help to formulate a conclusion.

Conclusion and Recommendations: Conclusion reached in the research work and recommendations and/or implications. Bibliography: A list of sources of information/references used. Appendices: Tables, Charts, and any other presentation of analysis that are not shown in the main body. These parts are expected to be found in every academic research paper, which may be given different names or titles depending upon the nature and type of research paper written (Bhakar & Mehta, 2011; Haisler, 2011).

Summary of the Article under Review The authors of the article under review - Stainton et al. (2010) have noted that the research works conducted in the past in relation to business gaming simulations have not reached convincing conclusions. The authors further argue that researchers in the past have mainly considered limitations of business gaming simulations, “However, no attempts have been made to provide guidelines for assessing educational validity in terms of building, implementing, and validating business gaming simulation” (Stainton et al., 2010, p.705).

Keeping in view these limitations of previous research works, the authors have reviewed the literature pertaining to the subject under investigation and have proposed a methodology to evaluate “educational validity of total enterprise simulation.” (Stainton et al., 2010, p.705). For this purpose, the researchers presented a brief introduction to the topic and have identified a concise aim of the research. After the introductory part, the authors have focused on reviewing past literature for understanding what is required to achieve learning effectiveness.

With an extensive review of literature, researchers have been able to identify hypotheses to be tested out in their study for validity. Upon reviewing the article, it is noted that a clear and concise conclusion from reviewing existing literature lacks, which could have encompassed the literature gap and particular areas which the researchers are aiming for evaluation or investigation. The next section deals with the research methodology adopted by researchers. In this regard, they have adopted a case study approach and highlighted its significance and why the approach suits the aim of the research.

 However, there are some weaknesses in the layout observed; for instance, the aim has been well described by the researchers, but no further segregation of aim into research objectives have been done, which could have further narrowed down the study (Shewan, 2007).

Apart from this, the research methodology section requires clear identification of research methods adopted in the research and data collection methods and sources and how conclusions are drawn from sources used. However, in the article under review, these sections are not expressly mentioned in the methodology section, and a quick skimming through the methodology section is not possible. Apart from this, the findings and discussion and conclusion, and recommendation sections are well structured and presented.