Sounds to me like you should write two papers.

In the first, report the results of your original work, but in the discussion of the results, mention your additional hypotheses, such as stating them as proposed explanations for your first paper results..

Then the second paper will take those hypotheses as the starting point for new research questions.

Sounds to me like you should write two papers.

In the first, report the results of your original work, but in the discussion of the results, mention your additional hypotheses, such as stating them as proposed explanations for your first paper results..

Then the second paper will take those hypotheses as the starting point for new research questions.

I agree with the view of Prof. Marek. In addition, the best approach would be the inclusion of only one hypothesis and generated results in the same paper, increasing, thus, the number of different papers.

Regards

I think it is OK to have a general introduction and then separate small intros for each exp (we do this all the time). If the new hypotheses are generated from the data in Exp. 1, then this approach makes perfect sense. But it is also Ok to mention what you found in the intro and how that led to the hypotheses for the second exp. 

What you're describing is the foundations of programmatic research that would better serve the topic in one paper. An initial study should obviously have a priori hypotheses but if something were to emerge that was unexpected, it would benefit to investigate that further, which could create an interesting story of identifying the overall process beyond a single study. Besides, for the sake of reducing Type I error, having multiple studies showing the same thing, albeit with small extensions, is ideal in the current scientific climate.

Hi,

The twigging of hypotheses in the process of paper writing is a well known phenomenon. My suggestion is to split the paper into two, and introduce the second hypothesis in the second paper, that way you'll have an additional paper. In many research journals one can sometimes observe papers that are divided into part one and part two. This is a common practice.

It would be helpful to know if the proposed second study is really a novel experiment designed to test novel hypotheses or involves data from the same study analyzed to test different ideas. I'm often against liberal splitting of papers b/c it feels a bit like "data mining" and I think you'd want a higher impact paper that is more thorough rather than just trying to milk a project for multiple pubs, unless it really is two stand alone experiments.

Hi,

Maybe this questionnaire will help ?

http://www.testmycreativity.com/

I second Mitch Brown.

The title of your paper should reflect the fact that this is about a research programme, not a single research activity.

My present paper (still work-in-progress) has a general introduction, followed by study 1, study 2, .. etc. Each study builds on findings / results of the previous one, each with its own introduction and increasingly refined hypotheses. I refer to the hypotheses contained in the first study as 'assumptions guiding the research', as they are still rather general. New findings in subsequent studies also led to fine-tuning and even abandoning instruments and complementing quantitative with qualitative methods.

Presenting arguments why you opted for a specific structure of your work will improve its quality.

Good luck!

This will depend on the politics of the journal where you want to publish. So see with the journal.

In principle you must be sincere and in either sections or papers (if they will be two papers or sections) say exactly how you proceeded. The logic that you followed must be exposed since it helps understand the significance (and the problems) of your experiments and the hypotheses.

Dear,

You can write as perpectives of future studies.

Best,

Maria Cristina

Dear Lily Johnson-Ulrich,

My suggestion for you writes your paper and results that you have found with a brief description about the hypotheses that you have to discover.  You can mention in conclusion about the new hypotheses, and you well work on them in the future work in the second paper.

To protect your work until you publish the second paper, you can archive using arXiv website archiving.

I hope my answer will help you.

Best Regards,

Musab Tr

You may include the additional information in the main paper. Creating two papers will only add numerically. The intrinsic value will be enhanced by extending your arguments vis-a-vis the additional hypothesis the work has generated. Kindly keep in mind the relevance of additional assumptions for the main body of the research.

All the best

Lily

I also suggest that you should follow the advices of the people who have more experience in publishing (and published more articles).

Develop your information into two papers. You can always mention in the first that this study as evolved into another piece of research, which often intrigues readers to read the secondary study. 

El que usted publique las nuevas hipótesis en el trabajo es una opción apropiada al desarrollo del conocimiento. Porque esas hipótesis señalan que hay apertura a otras contestaciones, a seguir indagando. De hecho, sostengo que después del proceso de investigación un cierre adecuado sería el enunciado de nuevas hipótesis generadas en esa investigación en particular y que van a demandar su necesaria respuestas

Dear madam! It is so nice to have a new result , theory, or hypothesis while you were 

workiing on another topic ! Please mention as it appeared to you in this article, and later, you can plan another experiment to asses this new hhotheseis, never be hasty to make 

beg decision in science ! Thank yoo , mm elsahookie,

Thanks Dr. Lily Johns0n-Ulrich for an interesting aspect of scientific methodology and investigation that facinates ua sll. In my opinion, there are no specific format of what one wants to include in a research paper. It can vary widely that differs from author to author depending on the content and what the author what to convey either in one paper or two papers or more depenidng on the information and the importance or the results of the content of the series of papers. Indeed there are some interesting publication on similar lines that you have mentioned about starting with a hypothesis ending with more than one hypothesis, which the authors have dealt or eloberated in different papers as well. Some people publish is as series as well -- some keeping the same main heading but changing the subheading for the hypothesis; some others publish as different papers as independent papers with reference to their previous results etc.  

            I believe one of the classical example, I can site is the well known Mendel's publications of results on the breeding experimens on pea plants in 1865. He has a very well formed hypothesis for the series of experiment to show about the particulate natue of inheritance of the traits in pea plant.  What is interesting and now very illustrated example of a scienfific methodology is the hypothesis that the end results of his publication -- a hypothesis about the concept of what he has called as 'unit of heridity' that was supposed to be located in the reproductive cells. Now it has been called as "Gene" and the entire science of Genetics has developed in a very short span of time.  Here is an example of person who starts with simple hypothesis and conducts to innovative experiments to get some very interesting and classical laws of heridity and comeout of an hypothesis about -- "gene"   

Since I basically is interested in molecular and gentic aspects of diverse populations primarily in India. In my experience I can cite the example of Neel and his coworkers where they have published series papers (~ 1980's) on Amerindians and their anthropological genetics. This was published as series of interesting papers where they deal with several hypothesis and consider them with respect with the Amerindian tribes. I have a similar experience while I have been working on the antiquity of syphilis (trepnometosis). We have found one skull suggesting its possible antiquity to Old Wold (Hypothesis) which was, in a way, contradicting the alternative hypothesis New World Hypothesis supported by Baker.  You can get the papers from research gate or academia.edu of these papers from online. We have published the paper in 1996 in American Journal of Physical Anthropology. After publishing this article I had another aspect of the problem to be able to get furhter additional evidence or the reasons for the Old World Hypothesis, which I wrote as an independent paper in Journal of Human Evolution on the title on the antiquity of treponeometosis in (East) Asia. 

..........................

1996: Possible paleopathological evidence of treponematosis from a megalithic site at Agripalle, India. Am. J. Phys. Anthrop. 100:49-55. V.V.Rao, T.S.Vasulu and A. D. W. Rector Babu. 

1993: On the origin and antiquity of syphilis (treponematosis) in southeast Asia.      Hum. Evol. 8(4):229-233. T.S. Vasulu.

.....................................................

There was one more paper where we have developed a hypothesis on the antiquity of tribal population in Indian subcontinent. While getting the relevant data and analysis to support the hypothsis the results indicated other possible hypotheis of the antiquity of the tribes in Indian subcontinent.  This we have elaborated in the discussion part. Of course if I have more information, data and relevant analsyis I would like to publish this in more than one paper in future. But in the meanwhile some others also can take our hypotheis can publish as well. This we have published in one single paper, again, in American Journal Physical Anthrpology. below is the reference of the publication.  There must be several examples. 

..........................................................

2009: A microsatellite study to disentangle the ambiguity of linguistic, geographic, ethnic and linguistic influences on tribes of India to get a better clarity of the antiquity and    peopling of South Asia. Krithika, S. Suvendu Maji, T.S. Vasulu. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 139(4):533-546. Web On line 13March 2009.DOI.10.1002/ajpa.21018.

..........................................................................

Dear All

The most comments are interesting, but I agree with Michael W. Marek and  Musab A. Al-Tarawni, ,

Best Regards,

I am surprised, as probably you are, to see how people advance their propositions without even knowing what you are talking about. I also do not know what your research is about.

If this is animal behavior, I think you can examine the most important experiments and papers from the times of Pavlov and later Skinner and some new experiments and you will see that their papers almost always advanced a series of hypotheses that are presented in the same paper. Even today, not in clinical but in animal experiments, one experiment opens up number of new hypotheses, some of which are followed experimentally and often presented in the same paper. In my experiments (pharmacology, muscle contraction, sepsis) particularly in those in vitro, I almost always had a series of experiments, where the later experiments where based on the findings of the preceding experiments. This is in fact the most logical way of pursuing biological mechanisms and to prove or disapprove the chains of hypotheses. But as I said, nothing could really be answered before one knows what exactly are your experiments, what the hypotheses are and what the results are.

As I said, each journal has its editorial policy and you should probably write to the journal where you want to publish and seak an advice.

Dear colleague

wishing you tell us what is your research field, so generally you can put all in one paper.

regards 

Dear,

If the new hypotheses are from the context of the same study, I think you can refer them in it. It's my opinion.

Greetings!

Dear

I suggest you use these new hypothesis for other paper. It can be confused in the same paper.

Thank

The new hypothesis belongs in the section named "Further Work" Especially for thesis and dissertation the discipline of superiors is strict. The original hypothesis should be accepted or rejected based on the results.

A new hypothesis will need some new results in addition to the available results to demonstrate a predictive capability. Otherwise the results become empirical and devalued.