I have seen several conceptual papers with different formats. Some, highly structured with a section on methodology, findings and discussion, whilst others are written in "free style" approach. What should be the standard structure of a conceptual paper?
Yes dear whitehead, Ahtisham has given a very good response here. In addition to the requirements of a journal the common structures of a conceptual paper are
1. Abstract
2. Introduction
3. Literature review
4. Theoretical foundation and hypothesis development
5. Implications
6. Conclusion and limitations.
Thanks.
There could be various types of conceptual papers such as development of theories, expansion of research methods, commentaries, and discussions. The structure of the paper mainly depends on the journal to which author wants to submit. However, in all conceptual papers there has to be an introduction entailing the need for the paper, what is already written about the subject, and what this new paper adds to the literature. The remaining subsections are authors' discretion. Those conceptual papers in which the authors clearly state their methodology and the sources for argumentation could be based on extensive and systematic literature reviews. A general structure could be:
- Introduction (Explaining the need of and international relevance of the paper and a few statements about the existing literature)
- Background (A detailed discussion of the previous literature on the very subject)
- Purpose/Aim
- Major arguments along with the supporting literature
- Discussion (Implications, future research, limitations)
- Conclusion
Ahtisham has given a very good response here. The format is often dictated by the journal house-style. They often have standard headings for manuscripts that are not primary research - but 'force' primary research headings. That is not the fault of the author. Given a choice (or more insightful journal headings) of headings, then Ahtisham's list is a good one to follow. I would not recommend a 'free-style' approach - if that means few headings - as rigour is key in conceptual papers. The more that the 'process' is broken down and clearly sign-posted - the better.
The most important parts of a scientific paper is two-fold:
1. Introduction
2. Methodology
If one does not understand either or both, or if there is confusion/obfuscation in either or both, the rest of the paper is meaningless.
Yes dear whitehead, Ahtisham has given a very good response here. In addition to the requirements of a journal the common structures of a conceptual paper are
1. Abstract
2. Introduction
3. Literature review
4. Theoretical foundation and hypothesis development
5. Implications
6. Conclusion and limitations.
Thanks.
The structure is not standardized but usual paper or article structure would be one standard that evolves. What you do with the paper matters and you will have to modify it depending on purpose of the paper: journal, book chapter, etc. All have different structures of multiple order.
Thank you, Mohammad Mizanur Rahman.
Does one need to also outline a methodology for the conceptual paper?
I'm asking this question because some studies state in their method section that they review other articles.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Papers