Abstract

Journals are where professional knowledge becomes part of the record. Unlike blogs and magazines, they ask writers to make their methods transparent, submit their claims to editorial and or peer review, and use citations in ways that allow readers to trace ideas, check sources, and build on what is published. In applied fields, journals may switch focus from solely research-based articles to trade-based or translational formats that target practitioners and scholars at the same time. That bridging role matters, because practice improves faster when it can be questioned, compared, and refined in public. This article is a practical guide to writing for these venues with a focus on translational material. It distinguishes scholarly from professional aims, outlines common article forms (case study, essay, commentary, literature review, methods note, original research), and walks through the anatomy of a publishable manuscript from title to references. Treating prose as part of method, it offers principles for argument structure, paragraphs as units of proof, stance and signposting, and the use of figures and tables as components of the argument. It also explains how to support claims with citations and proposes a flexible workflow from claim to submission, alongside what editors and reviewers look for, common pitfalls with brief examples, and expectations for ethics, inclusion, and tone.

Introduction: Journals, audiences, and aims

Good ideas often stall at the keyboard. Practitioners are urged to “write it up,” and what arrives is either a lively blog post or a dense imitation of academic ritual with plenty of terminology but little argument. Neither quite counts as a journal article, and valuable insights miss the readers who could use them. The problem is not a shortage of expertise, it is opaque expectations about genre and craft. Every journal submission needs an angle, which is another way of saying it needs a thesis. A journal article is not a general introduction to a topic or a list of tools you happen to use, it is a defended answer to a focused question.

Journals turn hard-won insight into something others can find, test, and use. They exist to advance and scrutinise knowledge by offering arguments anchored to evidence, citational accountability, and durable outputs (DOIs, indexing) that others can reliably find, teach, and build on. They require method transparency and ethical responsibility, so claims can be checked, adapted, and improved by turning local insight into field-level change. By contrast, blogs exchange rigour for speed and a casual voice, and magazines reach broad audiences with edited stories but usually lack peer review, formal citation, or procedural detail. All three can be engaging but only journals ask for clear justification and enough information for replication or adaptation. The upsides for writers are substantial: sharper thinking through editorial review, professional credibility, a citable record of impact, and the chance for your work to travel into classrooms, clinics, and policies.

Different journals serve different communities. Research journals focus on methodological clarity and theoretical contribution and are primarily read and written by academics. Professional or trade journals serve practitioners and emphasise actionable guidance and responsible recommendations. Many applied fields live in the space between the two. Translational journals occupy that research–practice interface, welcoming submissions that are useful to practitioners and credible to scholars, while holding authors to standards appropriate to both audiences. Translational work connects discovery and use by turning findings from labs, clinics, and communities into interventions or guidance, feeding practice insights back to refine theory and methods. For example, journals such as Behavior Analysis in Practice, Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, Veterinary Nurse, Human-Animal Interactions (CABI), and the IAABC Foundation Journal explicitly aim to be useful to practitioners while maintaining scholarly standards appropriate to peer-reviewed work. The aim is not to dilute expectations, but to make rigour legible and usable across settings. Writing for such venues means careful framing, explicit links between evidence and practice, and prose that is precise without being dry.

This article is intended to make those expectations explicit. It sets out what a journal article is for, how its argument is built, and what editors and reviewers attend to. It helps you choose a suitable form, map the anatomy of a publishable piece, and treat voice as part of method by showing how to frame a defensible claim, support it with sources, and carry a reader through clear reasoning. It closes with common pitfalls (with brief before/after fixes) and a staged workflow from idea to submission. A companion piece in IAABC Foundation Journal Issue 32, Reading Between the Lines: Research Literacy for Behaviour Professionals (Jones, 2025), focuses on appraising evidence once it is on the page. Read what follows as a colleague’s briefing: rigorous, candid, and designed to help your next submission land.

Professional and scholarly: different purposes, shared standards

Professional (trade-based) articles and scholarly (research-based) articles serve distinct but related (and sometimes overlapping) purposes. Understanding the difference will help you choose the right form for your ideas and will also make your writing stronger.

But bridging these styles for translational journals can be a bit of an art. Writers have to keep their readers in mind and know what sort of article they’re crafting, without getting tangled in academic jargon or losing the heart of real-world wisdom. Translational journals that meet at the intersection of research and professional do best when authors can make their ideas matter to both the curious researcher and the practical-minded professional. That means framing questions and arguments in ways that feel relevant and useful no matter where you’re coming from. When you mix clear methodology with grounded experience — and aren’t afraid to show a little personality — your writing stands out. It’s about bringing together sharp evidence and the texture of actual practice, so the finished piece isn’t just credible, it’s also genuinely helpful.

Professional writing

Professional articles primarily address practitioners, focusing on translating theoretical knowledge into effective practice. They critically reflect on real-world work and provide well-reasoned guidance for addressing practical problems. While evidence remains essential, the emphasis is firmly on application, reflective engagement, and making tacit expertise explicit. Thus, a strong professional article demonstrates how theory is enacted in practice. For example, it may recount a specific case, clarify a method, or investigate an ethical dilemma. Throughout, clarity and accountability are paramount, ensuring readers understand both the reasoning and the practical implications behind the guidance offered.

Scholarly writing

Scholarly articles advance knowledge either through original research or through rigorous theoretical work such as philosophy, conceptual analysis, ethical argument, methodological critique, or history of ideas (Bem, 2021; Molinari, 2022). In every case, a scholarly piece poses a clear question, shows where it sits in the literature, and makes its reasoning or method open to inspection (Bem, 2021). For empirical studies, that means specifying data, procedures, and analyses so others can scrutinise or repeat them. For theoretical or philosophical pieces, that means defining terms, representing positions fairly, structuring arguments, and addressing likely objections. Across both modes, claims are bounded, conclusions follow from the evidence or reasons offered, and the contribution explicitly shows what readers can now understand, do, or examine that they could not before.

The two modes differ in emphasis rather than seriousness. In any reputable journal, every article is journal work — arguable, citable, and transparent. Professional-format pieces are held to the same standards of clarity, warrant, and accountability as scholarly pieces; they simply centre practice problems and reflective method, like this article you are reading right now. The labels themselves indicate function, not status. If your primary contribution is a reflective analysis that turns experience into a method others can apply, you are likely writing a professional article. If you offer a new empirical result or a systematic theoretical analysis (including philosophical argument), you are likely writing a scholarly article.

The following article types often appear in journals. They are not rigid categories, and they can be combined where appropriate. What matters is the clarity of your intent.

Case study

A case study narrates and analyses a single case or a small cluster of closely related cases. Its value is depth and specificity. It shows how reasoning unfolds moment by moment and how context shapes outcomes. A strong case study identifies the central question the case illuminates, describes the setting, learner, goals, and constraints with care, and explains the rationale for each step taken (Hancock, Algozzine & Lim, 2021; Prud’homme-Généreux, 2016). It reflects on uncertainty, ethical considerations, and counterfactuals and avoids hero narratives, while making room for complexity (Hancock et al., 2021). The generalisable value lies in the reasoning, not in claiming universal rules from one case.

Essays

An essay is a focused piece of writing that advances a specific, arguable claim and supports it with reasons and verifiable evidence (Khoshhal, 2021). Its purpose is inquiry and argument. It defines key terms, explains choices, and makes the steps of reasoning visible (Greetham, 2022). At its centre is a clear thesis that the whole essay defends, and every paragraph either builds that case, clarifies scope, or considers and answers objections. Evidence is analysed rather than merely reported, and citations allow readers to trace ideas and check sources. Essays can be analytical, argumentative, expository, comparative, reflective, or literature review based, but all require a defensible claim, relevant evidence, and coherent reasoning (Molinari, 2022). Essays are not reports, narratives, or unsupported opinion pieces (Nenotek, Tlonaen, & Manubulu, 2022). Done well, an essay functions as a disciplined conversation that produces understanding, not just information (Greetham, 2022; Molinari, 2022).

Commentary

A commentary distils experience into a clear position on practice or ethics, and it explains what follows from that position. Like an essay, it should make a specific, defensible claim, but it is typically led by professional reasoning and real-world implications rather than by the literature alone (Bloom & Thomas, 2020; Pautasso, 2013; Mensh & Kording, 2017). Some commentaries introduce a protocol, a set of teaching procedures, or a diagnostic workflow (Bloom & Thomas, 2020; Pautasso, 2013; Mensh & Kording, 2017). The best of these pieces combine clarity with humility. They state what the approach is designed to achieve, where it shines, and where it should not be used. Claims are supported with references and, where possible, with documented outcomes such as case follow-up, client feedback, or tracked results (Bloom & Thomas, 2020). They explain how to adapt across contexts and they note limitations (Pautasso, 2013).

Literature review or state-of-the-field synthesis

A literature review maps what is known, what is contested, and what remains to be done. It can be scoping, narrative, or systematic, depending on purpose and resources (Livschitz & Dream, 2023; Mauer & Venecek, 2022). For example, a scoping review explores the breadth and depth of research on a given topic, mapping key concepts, types of evidence, and gaps (Booth et al., 2021). A narrative review provides a descriptive summary and critical discussion of literature on a topic (Agarwal, Charlesworth & Elrakhawy, 2023). A systematic review follows a rigorous, predefined method to identify, appraise, and synthesise all relevant studies on a specific question (Booth et al., 2021). In a translational journal, narrative and scoping reviews are common because they can synthesise findings and translate them for practitioners. Whatever the subtype, a good review is explicit about its logic and appraisal of evidence. It does not simply string summaries, it builds an argument.

Original research

Original research presents novel findings, utilising qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods (Budhathoki, 2023; Torres-Valladares et al., 2022). The manuscript should adhere to established conventions of the selected design (Budhathoki, 2023). For qualitative studies, clearly describe the analytic approach, demonstrate reflexivity, and outline criteria for evaluating quality (Barroga et al., 2023). For quantitative research, detail the design, measures, and analytical procedures, including the reporting of effect sizes and relevant uncertainty (Barroga et al., 2023; Lim & Koay, 2024). In mixed methods research, clarify the relationships between methodological strands (Barroga et al., 2023). Across all formats, ensure that claims are substantiated by evidence and address limitations as integral elements of methodological rigour rather than points of defence.

Methods note or practice-based protocol

A methods note describes a tool, measure, or procedure in enough detail that others can use it (a kind of “how-to,” if you will). It explains why the method is needed, how it compares to alternatives, and what its constraints are (South et al., 2024). It may or may not include a small validation or feasibility study. Clarity and reproducibility are the tests of value here.

Review of a book or resource

Reviews serve as valuable guides for readers navigating an increasingly complex information environment. In a journal, a review adopts an evaluative approach rather than a purely descriptive one, assessing aspects such as the work’s scope, target audience, contribution, and limitations (Heyd, 2017). Whenever applicable, the review links the resource to practical applications and identifies potential beneficiaries and methods of benefit.

These formats serve as tools to achieve specific objectives. Select the form that aligns most effectively with your primary goal and supporting evidence, and maintain a clear focus on this objective throughout your writing. Below is a summation of the various types of journal articles discussed (Table 1). Note: This is not a complete list, and some publications may have specific or more nuanced subcategories.

Table 1. A summation of common article types.

The anatomy of a publishable article

Let’s turn now to the writing and structure. Regardless of the type of work, the architecture of a journal article is specific — an article that readers trust has a recognisable shape. The shape varies by type, but certain components recur.

1. What promise does my title make?

Your title signals what the article is and why it matters. Be specific without being dull. Avoid puns that conceal meaning. If a subtitle helps, use one to clarify scope or audience. Your title should make the right readers lean in.

2. What does a useful abstract include?

An abstract is a short, faithful map. State the problem, the approach, and the main contribution in concrete terms. Include the type of article if it is not obvious from the title. For empirical work, mention design and participants. For practice-based work, indicate context and application. I suggest you write the abstract last so it reflects the finished piece.

3. What are keywords?

Choose terms your readers and indexers actually use. Aim for a blend of method, topic, and audience, and avoid idiosyncratic labels.

4. How do I write an introduction and frame the problem?

No matter the type of article, open with a real problem in the world. Situate that problem in the conversations that matter, including scholarship and practice. Then name your contribution clearly. If your article is professional, state how it will help practitioners reason or act. If it is scholarly, state the research question and what is at stake in answering it.

5. How do I include background and related work?

Offer only the background that your argument needs, then summarise key findings and positions fairly and cite them. Synthesis matters more than coverage here. The purpose is to locate your reader inside the right conversation and to justify why your article is needed now.

6. What goes in methods and materials (where applicable)

For empirical articles or essays and literature reviews, describe what you did in enough detail that a careful reader could evaluate the quality of your evidence. If this is a case study, define your case, context, measures, and process of reasoning. If this is a qualitative study, articulate your analytic approach and steps taken to enhance credibility (Barroga et al., 2023). If this is quantitative, define variables and analyses, and report measures of uncertainty (Torres-Valladares et al., 2022). If your article is reflective or conceptual, explain your lens and how you will proceed.

7. How do I present my results or main analysis?

Present the core of your contribution in a logical sequence. For empirical work, show what you found. For practice-based or reflective work, develop your reasoning step by step, using examples, vignettes or mini-case examples where they help. Keep description and interpretation distinct even if they sit in the same section.

8. What do I discuss in a discussion?

Interpret what the analysis shows and what it does not show, then connect back to the question you posed at the start. Explain practical implications and scholarly contributions without overreach. Also make sure to acknowledge limits and alternative interpretations. The goal is not to pre-empt every critique but to model intellectual honesty.

9. What are the implications for practice and future work?

No matter what type of article you are writing, spell out what changes in practice might reasonably follow from your article and what should not change yet. Identify specific questions that remain. Do not use the future work section as a dumping ground, be concrete in your suggestions and ground them in your own work’s strengths and shortcomings.

10. How do I conclude?

A conclusion does more than repeat the abstract, it leaves the reader with a distilled understanding of your contribution and why it matters. It often circles back to the real-world problem you opened with and tells the reader what they now know or can do with their newly gained knowledge.

11. Acknowledgements and disclosures

If others contributed, acknowledge them. If there are potential conflicts of interest, declare them.

12. Where do references go?

Your reference list should be complete and consistent with the journal’s style. Use primary sources where possible and ensure every in-text citation appears in the list and every listed source is cited somewhere in the text.

Writing: craft, clarity, and voice

Good writing is not ornamental; it is part of the method. In a journal article the prose carries the load. It puts the claim on the table, shows what holds it up, and draws a clear line around its limits. In applied fields, clarity is an ethical duty, because sentences travel into classrooms, clinics, and consultancies, shaping choices that affect living beings. Thus, to write well is to accept responsibility for what the reader will understand, how they will evaluate it, and what they will do next.

Keep the center of gravity on the architecture of the argument, not a grab-bag of style tips. An article earns its place when it advances a claim that could be contested and supports it with reasons and evidence a critical reader can check. Before you draft, reduce the contribution to one sentence that a reasonable colleague might challenge. This is not a slogan, it is the proposition the manuscript will work to defend. Give each section one job in that case, leading the reader from a motivating problem to a warranted conclusion. Let headings act as wayfinding, with short statements that tell the next step in the reasoning rather than labels for topics. A reader should be able to skim them and see the arc of your argument.

Sentence-level craft should serve the argument and help the reader stay engaged. Choose concrete nouns and precise verbs. For example, “Changing the reinforcement schedule halved vocalisations” tells the reader what happened, in which direction, and by how much. “The intervention impacted outcomes” tells them almost nothing. Use active voice when naming the actor clarifies responsibility or decision-making (e.g., “The clinician adjusted the schedule”). Use passive voice when the actor is unknown or irrelevant, or when you need to centre the process or outcome (e.g., “The gate was left open”). Rhythm matters, too. Mix short, medium, and the occasional longer sentence to guide attention and let the short lines carry the key point (like I did here).

Within a section, the paragraph is the basic unit of proof. Begin with a topic sentence that states the claim to be shown and then follow with sentences that supply evidence, analysis, and the boundaries of that claim. End your paragraph by completing the inference or laying the bridge to the next step. This is how readers test adequacy and understand the importance of what you are saying. Do the reasons support the claim? Are alternative explanations considered? Is the conclusion proportionate to the evidence (Booth et al., 2016)? Paragraph structure can be challenging, so below I outline how to write one well.

Now that we can structure our sentences and paragraphs, let’s turn to the analysis. Analysis of data, but also of literature and practice, gains credibility when it unfolds in scenes and steps. Even technical arguments are built from situated decisions: what to measure, which threshold to adopt, how to weigh competing goods. In practice-based work, make the pivotal moment examinable. Set the context, state the options, explain the rationale behind the opinion, and indicate how uncertainty was handled. For example, if a fearful dog shows tongue-flicks during handling, the practitioner halts, adjusts the set-up, and returns with a different plan. Naming that decision and the reasons for it turns tacit judgement into accountable reasoning. In research reports, walk readers through the analytic pathway rather than presenting only outcomes. Name exclusions and edge cases that shaped interpretation. Specificity is not embellishment; it is the condition under which others can evaluate transferability or replicability.

Help your reader navigate and make sense of each section because what is obvious to you may not be obvious to them. Treat stance and signposting as part of the method by giving clear cues about the status of each claim, what is observation, what is interpretation, what is conjecture, and guide readers through your text. Hedging (“the data suggest…,” “in this context…”) is precision when it marks scope accurately and brief orientation cues (“we argue…,” “the next section examines…,” “as discussed earlier…,” “the research suggests…”) guide attention without slipping into informality and help align expectations between author and reader (Hyland, 2005). And one thing that cannot be emphasised enough is to always define and operationalise your terms so that readers new to the topic can follow the argument. This is a trap all writers fall into and sometimes what we assume is common sense isn’t so common.

A translational audience asks for two things, and your prose should serve both. Practitioners want the “so what.” They want to know what will change on Monday and why. Scholars want the “show me” – they want to see how your claim is warranted by method and evidence. To do this, use a scene-to-sense rhythm. Begin with a tight, concrete moment. For example, Friday handovers kept drifting, and three clients left with three different next steps. Step back and name the principle the scene reveals. In this case, unclear instructions invite drift. Link that principle to sources that support it (as in, the literature and/or the reason you have drawn that conclusion) and state its limits. For instance, perhaps you have shown that teams with rotating staff may need a different tool. Alternate example, explanation and guidance. This gives practitioners a pattern they can use and gives scholars a trail they can test. The hinge between instance and inference is where usefulness and credibility meet.

Figures and tables are an equally important part of your writing. The figure’s job is to make that comparative claim visible at a glance (see Figure 1 and Figure 2). Decide what each visual will demonstrate (e.g., comparison, change over time, composition, or relation) and design for that purpose. Captions should do more than name the display, they should explain what is shown, how to read it, and what pattern warrants attention. In the prose, refer to the figure at the point where the reader needs it and summarise the key finding in words. A careful reader should be able to follow the story from the text alone and to verify it by consulting the visual.

Figure 1. Acceptance likelihood by revision approach (mock data). Bars show the proportion of submissions accepted under three self-reported workflows. The staged approach (structure → argument → sentences) is associated with the highest acceptance likelihood. Read as an argument for sequencing revision, not as a field estimate; the point is design, not the exact percentages.

Figure 2. Matrix showing emphasis (0–3) for eight transparency tasks across ten article sections; highest values cluster in Methods/Approach, Results/Analysis, and Discussion.

Finally, publication begins in revision, so treat it as method in three passes: structure, argument, sentences. First secure the line of reasoning. Then test each claim against the evidence and cut what overreaches. Lastly, tune the prose for pace and clarity. Three quick diagnostics keep you honest: read aloud, make a reverse outline (one sentence per paragraph), and ask a colleague to state your claim in one sentence. If those three do not align, reorganise before you polish (Belcher, 2019; Silvia, 2018). The aim is writing that carries the argument cleanly and leaves room for the reader to verify it.

A note on voice and inclusion for nonhumans

Voice is part of method as much as style and journals are a place for more formal writing style. It’s important to avoid slang, casual language and colloquial terms. Treat nonhuman animals as subjects of moral concern by using they/them (or he/she), not “it,” and describe behaviour in context rather than pinning fixed labels on individuals. Where terms are contested or carry various meanings across fields, define your usage, acknowledge common alternatives, and cite representative positions. Extend inclusive language to humans by avoiding assumptions about identity, ability, or circumstance. The aim is not euphemism but accuracy and respect, which help readers see the work clearly.

Supporting your writing with citations: how evidence works

Citations are both the receipts and the road map of a journal article. They place your contribution inside a live conversation, show what warrants each step of the argument, and give readers a way to retrace, verify, and build on your work. Used well, citations make reading lighter, not heavier: they signal where the weight of the case sits and why a reader should trust it. Now, I’m going to give some examples of citations in this section, which are meant for illustrative purposes only. They will all use the surname Doe and fabricated years, page numbers, etc.

A simple rule of thumb is to cite wherever a fair reader could ask, How do you know? (Molinari, 2021). Facts that are not common knowledge, reported numbers, definitions, and strong interpretations need sources. Shared background usually does not but, when unsure, err towards transparency, especially for claims that are normative or likely to be debated (Torres-Valladares et al., 2022). Aim for traceability, not decoration. For example: After we standardised the handover script, call-backs fell over two weeks. Similar patterns are reported in applied communication studies, followed by one or two key sources. That brief explanation tells the reader why the citations are there and how they support the claim.

Source selection also matters. Primary research is preferred over unsourced summaries, blogs and websites so readers can evaluate methods and limits directly (Torres-Valladares, 2022). When drawing on reviews, lean toward systematic or scoping reviews that describe their search and appraisal strategies (Aghadiuno, 2017). For practice guidance, prioritise sources that explain mechanisms and constraints rather than reporting outcomes alone. The companion article in the IAABC Foundation Journal Issue 32, Reading Between the Lines: Research Literacy for Behaviour Professionals (Jones, 2025), offers practical tools for judging quality.

Integration is as important as selection and can be a challenge to do correctly. Place citations where the reader needs them – usually within the sentence that advances the claim – and explain, briefly, why the source is there (Aghadiuno, 2017). Signal phrases (e.g., “as shown in…,” “building on…”) help connect an idea to its provenance and reduce the need for citation clusters that interrupt flow (Graff & Birkenstein, 2018). Save parenthetical lists for moments where you intentionally indicate breadth across several studies or positions.

When you use direct quotations, do so sparingly. One or two short lines per section is enough, and only when the exact wording matters. For example, quote a clinic protocol that says, “pause and wait for a yes,” or a statutory label such as “restricted breed” (Doe, 2020, p. 6). Otherwise, keep the author’s meaning but say it in your own voice: In a multi-clinic study, nearly two-thirds of dogs exhibited lowered heart rates by the third session (Doe, 2021, p. 73). Give page numbers for every quotation and for any paraphrase tied to a precise claim. Make sure each in-text citation has a matching reference entry and that you follow the journal’s style consistently (APA 7th, Chicago, or MLA). Avoid secondary chains whenever you can, but if you cannot get the original, label it clearly: “Doe (2011, as cited in Doe, 2022, p. 88).”

Ethics and integrity in brief

Reputable academic and professional journals take ethics seriously, because publication guides practice and affects the welfare of people and nonhuman animals. Ethical writing therefore requires accuracy and transparency. State what you did, why you did it, and with what limits; protect privacy; obtain informed consent where required; and anonymise carefully, explaining your rationale and safeguards. If your article involved human or nonhuman participants, make clear how consent, privacy, and welfare were handled. If the work arose in routine practice outside formal institutional review, say so plainly and describe the measures taken to protect participants and data. Always consult the journal’s ethics and author guidelines (including policies on AI tools, authorship contributions, and plagiarism) before submission. Some journals will not accept work without institutional ethics approval, in which case you may need to recast the piece as a practice article and be explicit about its scope and stance.

From idea to draft to submission

There is no single correct workflow to writing, but the following sequence helps many authors turn ideas into publishable articles.

1. 1. Clarify the contribution. Write a short problem statement, a one-sentence claim, and a note on why the article matters now. Share this with a colleague. If the claim does not land with them, refine it before you draft.
   2. Sketch the structure. Create a one-page outline with headings that tell the story. Each heading should answer a question and advance the claim. If a heading cannot be phrased as an answer to a question, reconsider whether that section is needed.
   3. Collect the evidence. Assemble the case notes, data, and references you need to support the argument. Read selectively but deeply. Keep a living bibliography and capture a one-sentence note on what each source contributes to your article. This will make citation integration smoother later (Booth et al., 2016).
   4. Draft without polishing. Write the first draft quickly without formatting references. Keep moving until you have a full draft. I like to get words and ideas on paper and then refine.
   5. Revise for structure and argument. Now evaluate the architecture. Does each section earn its place? Does the sequence build a coherent case? Cut repetition and add transitions where the logic jumps. Move material until the argument reads in one fluent line from start to finish (Sword, 2012).
   6. Edit for clarity and style. Only after the structure is sound should you focus on sentences. Read them aloud and replace long nominalizations with verbs. Swap vague adjectives for concrete measures. Tighten without flattening tone and ensure labels are operationalised. Maintain consistent spelling and inclusive language consistent with the journal’s style.
   7. Integrate citations and compile references. Place citations where they do real work. Ensure every claim that needs support has it. Build the reference list to match the in-text citations in APA 7th Edition or the journal’s specified style. Check every detail.
   8. Final checks. Write the abstract last so it mirrors the article. Re-read the author guidelines for formatting, ethics, figure resolution, and length. Confirm that tables, figures, and captions are complete and interpretable on their own. Often it is required that these be sent as separate files and the file names properly. Be mindful of those sorts of details, because some journals will instantly reject your manuscript without even reading it if you haven’t formatted it correctly.
   9. Submit with confidence and humility. Submission is an invitation to conversation, so expect critique. It’s a normal and necessary part of the process. If peer review is part of your article type, treat reviewers as collaborators who help the article do its job. Respond to feedback with evidence and reason (and professionalism). When you disagree, explain why and, where possible, show rather than tell with clarifications in the text (Belcher, 2019).

Common pitfalls and how to avoid them

There are several traps that writers fall into. Here are a few of the more common issues editors see cross their desk:

1. 1. No clear claim. The most frequent problem is a manuscript that surveys a topic without taking a position. Begin by writing the single sentence your article will defend, then test every section against it (Graff & Birkenstein, 2018). If a paragraph does not move that claim forward, cut or repurpose it.
   2. Narrative without argument. Telling what happened is not yet analysis. Strong writing makes the reasons explicit: why this evidence supports this conclusion, which alternatives you considered, and why you set them aside (Booth et al., 2016). Weak: “We changed the handover script and things improved.” Revised (with sources): “After we standardised the handover script, call-backs dropped. Clearer expectations reduced client uncertainty, and this follows the general principle that naming expectations in plain language improves understanding (American Psychological Association, 2020) and models the practice of stating warrants so readers can test them (Booth et al., 2016).”
   3. Over-generalizing from a single case. Case work illuminates reasoning in context, and it does not prove a universal rule. Mark scope honestly and state where your recommendation may not apply. Think in terms of analytic rather than statistical generalization: what principle travels, and to which contexts (Yin, 2018; Tracy, 2010). Over-general: “Weekly debriefs prevent burnout.” Scoped claim: “In a small clinic with stable teams, a 20-minute Friday debrief coincided with fewer Monday absences over six weeks. Teams with rotating staff may need a different format.”
   4. Evidence without integration; integration without evidence. Long strings of citations do not substitute for explanation, and confident conclusions without sources do not meet journal standards. Embed citations where they support your work and tell the reader why the source appears at that point (Graff & Birkenstein, 2018). Citation stack: “Plain language helps (APA, 2020; Booth et al., 2016).” Integrated: “Plain language reduces misinterpretation in client materials (American Psychological Association, 2020), and laying out reasons explicitly helps readers follow your logic (Booth et al., 2016).”
   5. Jargon and undefined terms. Readers stall when a key term is never explained even if it feels obvious to you. Define what you mean and how you recognise it.Weak: “We kept him under threshold.”Revised: “We kept the dog far enough from bicycles that breathing stayed steady and sniffing resumed within 10 seconds after they passed. That is our working definition of ‘under threshold’.”
   6. Evidence quality and currency. Leaning on blogs, dated manuals, or single anecdotes weakens the case. Use recent primary sources for claims and reserve older or secondary pieces for context.
   7. Numbers without anchors. Percentages need denominators and time frames.Weak: “Success was 90%.”Revised: “Eighteen of 20 sessions (90%) met criteria within 10 minutes during Weeks 3–4.”
   8. Loaded labels. Terms like “stubborn,” “dominant,” or “naughty” add heat, not light. Describe observable behaviour and context.Weak: “She was being stubborn about the crate.”Revised: “She hesitated at the crate door, leaned back, and started panting, turning her head and lowered her body. Increasing distance and adding a predictable exit cue led to faster entries.”
   9. Inconsistent terminology. Switching words confuses readers. Pick one term and stick with it.Weak: “Owner,” “handler,” “caregiver,” and “parent” appear interchangeably.Revised: “We use ‘caregiver’ throughout and define it at first use.”
   10. Over- or under-hedging. Certainty without support undermines trust, but excessive hedging buries the point.Weak: “This proves enrichment cures stress.” / “It might perhaps suggest, in some cases, that…”Revised: “In this setting, predictable, choice-based enrichment coincided with lower vocalising. The design does not establish causation, so we treat this as a plausible mechanism to test.”
   11. Quotes doing the author’s job. Long blocks of quotation aren’t writing, they’re copying. One or two, at the very most, and only when necessary (unless we are talking about interview data reported in the results and/or discussion of an original research piece).

Conclusion: An invitation to write what you know, and to know it more deeply

Writing for a professional and/or scholarly journal is itself a mode of practice. It requires stating what you know, showing how you know it, and remaining open to revision when evidence and argument warrant it. The pieces that endure begin with a claim worth making, choose the form that fits, and carry the reader through a transparent chain of reasoning supported by appropriate evidence and ethically sound method. When you write in this way, you do more than meet a submission standard. You contribute to a shared project of improving how we think and act in the world of behaviour and care.

The companion article, Reading Between the Lines: Research Literacy for Behaviour Professionals, takes up the other half of the task: how to evaluate evidence once it is on the page. Read it alongside this one as you plan and write. Together, the two pieces offer a practical path from practice to publication and back again.

References

Agarwal, S., Charlesworth, M., & Elrakhawy, M. (2023). How to write a narrative review. Anaesthesia, 78(9), 1162–1166. https://doi.org/10.1111/anae.16016

Aghadiuno, P. C. (2017). Academic writing and referencing: A sine qua non for academic excellence. International Journal, 4(2). https://internationalpolicybrief.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/ARTICLE4-33.pdf

American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000165-000

Barroga, E., Matanguihan, G. J., Furuta, A., Arima, M., Tsuchiya, S., Kawahara, C., & Izumi, M. (2023). Conducting and writing quantitative and qualitative research. Journal of Korean Medical Science, 38(37), e291. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2023.38.e291

Bem, D. J. (2021). Writing the empirical journal article. In M. P. Zanna & J. M. Darley (Eds.), The compleat academic: A practical guide for the beginning social scientist (pp. 171–201). Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315808314-10

Belcher, W. L. (2019). Writing your journal article in twelve weeks: A guide to academic publishing success (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press.

Bloom, A. D., & Thomas, F. (2020). “Write what you know”: How to write a practical journal article. Journal of Solution Focused Practices, 4(1), Article 5. https://oasis.library.unlv.edu/journalsfp/vol4/iss1/5/

Booth, A., Colomb, G. G., Williams, J. M., Bizup, J., & FitzGerald, W. T. (2016). The craft of research (4th ed.). University of Chicago Press.

Booth, A., Sutton, A., Clowes, M., & Martyn-St James, M. (2021). Systematic approaches to a successful literature review (3rd ed.). SAGE.

Budhathoki, M. K. (2023). Writing better research articles for publication. Cognition, 5(1), 78–85. https://doi.org/10.3126/cognition.v5i1.55411

Graff, G., & Birkenstein, C. (2018). They say / I say: The moves that matter in academic writing (4th ed.). W. W. Norton.

Greetham, B. (2022). How to write better essays (5th ed.). Bloomsbury.

Hancock, D. R., Algozzine, B., & Lim, J. H. (2021). Doing case study research: A practical guide for beginning researchers (4th ed.). Teachers College Press.

Heyd, M. (2017). How to write a book review—and why you should. Journal of Hospital Librarianship, 17(4), 349–355. https://doi.org/10.1080/15323269.2017.1366783

Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Continuum.

Jones, E. (2025). Reading between the lines: Research literacy for behaviour professionals. IAABC Foundation Journal, 32. doi: https://www.doi.org/10.55736/iaabcfj32.5

Khoshhal, P. A. M. (2021). How to write an academic essay. International Journal for Research in Applied Sciences and Biotechnology, 8(6), 31–36. https://www.academia.edu/download/96310169/348.pdf

Lewis, T. E. (2024). Commentary on commentaries. Studies in Art Education, 65(1), 99–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/00393541.2023.2285221

Lim, W. M., & Koay, K. Y. (2024). So you want to publish in a premier journal? An illustrative guide on how to develop and write a quantitative research paper for premier journals. Global Business and Organizational Excellence, 43(3), 5–19.

Livschitz, J., & Dream, S. (2023). How to write a systematic review. The American Journal of Surgery, 226(4), 553–555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2023.05.015 https://doi.org/10.1002/joe.22252

Mauer, B., & Venecek, J. (2022). Strategies for conducting literary research (2nd ed.). Pressbooks.

Mensh, B., & Kording, K. (2017). Ten simple rules for structuring papers. PLOS Computational Biology, 13(9), e1005619. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005619

Molinari, J. (2022). What makes writing academic: Rethinking theory for practice. Bloomsbury Academic.

Nenotek, S. A., Tlonaen, Z. A., & Manubulu, H. A. (2022). Exploring university students’ difficulties in writing English academic essays. Al-Ishlah: Jurnal Pendidikan, 14(1), 909–920. https://doi.org/10.35445/alishlah.v14i1.1352

Pautasso, M. (2013). Ten simple rules for writing a literature review. PLOS Computational Biology, 9(7), e1003149. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003149

Prud’homme-Généreux, A. (2016). Case study: Writing a journal case study. Journal of College Science Teaching, 45(6), 65–70. https://doi.org/10.2505/4/jcst16_045_06_65

Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.

Silvia, P. J. (2018). How to write a lot: A practical guide to productive academic writing (2nd ed.). American Psychological Association.

South, J., Southby, K., Freeman, C., Bagnall, A. M., Pennington, A., & Corcoran, R. (2024). Synthesising practice-based case study evidence from community interventions: Development of a method. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 23. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069241276964

Sword, H. (2012). Stylish academic writing. Harvard University Press.

Torres-Valladares, D., Ballinas-García, E., Villarreal-Reyes, J., Morales-Álvarez, V., & Ortiz-del-Ánge, C. (2022). Research papers 101: The do’s and don’ts of scientific writing. Materials Today: Proceedings, 48, 107–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.12.708

Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837–851. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410383121

Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). SAGE.