Research-question development, evidence sourcing, manuscripts, citation checks and editing.
Research paper help: from a focused question to a defensible argument
A research paper should let another reader see what you asked, what evidence you used, how you selected or analysed it, and why your conclusions are justified. This guide focuses on legitimate research coaching and feedback. It does not supply a paper for submission under somebody else’s name, fabricated study results or invented references.
1. Start with a question that can be answered
Broad topics such as “technology in education” usually produce disconnected summaries. A more workable practice question would be: What evidence exists about how structured feedback affects revision behaviour among first-year undergraduate writers? This is an illustrative question, not a claim that a study has been conducted. The University of Melbourne’s guidance connects a clear research question with appropriate methods, results and discussion.
2. Decide what kind of research you are doing
A narrative literature review synthesizes published work using an explicitly described search and selection approach appropriate to its scope. A systematic review follows a prespecified, transparent procedure; the PRISMA 2020 materials give reporting checklists for eligible systematic reviews but do not, by themselves, validate the review’s methods. An empirical study involves original data collection or secondary-data analysis and may need ethics approval. Do not present a classroom literature exercise as a registered systematic review.
3. Build a source-search log
Specify the databases or library catalogues searched, the date, keywords, filters and reasons for including or excluding material. Search terms can combine concepts with AND/OR, but syntax varies by database. For example, a preliminary query could be ("formative feedback" OR "written feedback") AND undergraduate AND revision. Record limitations, such as excluding non-English publications or relying on a single database, rather than treating search results as exhaustive.
4. Use an evidence matrix before drafting
For each source, record author, year, context, method, participants or data, main finding, limitation and relevance to your own question. Do not invent entries. To practice, you can create blank fields and fill them only from publications you have actually read.
| Field | Question to answer from the source |
|---|---|
| Population/context | Whom or what was studied, and where? |
| Design | What method produced the evidence? |
| Finding | What was actually measured or argued? |
| Limitation | What constrains interpretation or generalisation? |
| Relevance | How does it answer my paper’s question? |
Use the research methodology toolkit and literature review structuring guide for a further practice workflow.
5. Separate methods, results and interpretation
A methods section should be detailed enough for the reader to understand sampling, variables, instruments, procedures and analytical decisions. In results, report the evidence that was obtained; in discussion, explain plausible meanings and how findings relate to prior work. Do not report statistical significance without the relevant test, assumptions and sample information. For a literature-based argument, make the quality and limitations of each cited source explicit.
6. A simple argument paragraph model
First make one bounded claim. Then present evidence with a precise citation. Next explain why the evidence is relevant, consider a limitation or contrary interpretation, and tie it back to the research question. This creates analysis rather than a list of article summaries. Always distinguish a source author’s conclusion from your own reasoning, and check every reference against the original publication.
7. Final review and ethics checklist
- Does the title match the actual question and scope?
- Is the study design or review type accurately labeled?
- Are sources authentic, relevant and traceable?
- Are the data and any example calculations clearly identified?
- Have limitations and alternative explanations been acknowledged?
- Are quotations, paraphrases, references and use of assistance consistent with course rules?
Useful follow-on support: research proposal guidance, editing of your own manuscript, citation checking and statistics concepts.