Module 1
Presentation 1
A. Types of Articles and Papers
Research is complete only when scholars share their results or findings with the
scientific community. Although researchers may post articles on scholarly collaboration
sites or preprint servers or share them informally by email or in person, the most widely
accepted medium for formal scholarly communication continues to be the published
article in a peer-reviewed, scientific journal. Scientific journals contain our primary
research literature and thus serve as repositories of the accumulated knowledge of a field.
Students are also important members of the scholarly community. Although most student
work is not formally published, by writing papers students engage in critical thinking,
thoughtful self-reflection, and scientific inquiry and thereby prepare to make unique
contributions to the repository of knowledge. Therefore, student writing deserves the
same level of care and attention to detail as that given to professional writing. In this
chapter, we provide important principles that professional and student authors should
consider before writing their paper or, in many cases, before embarking on a research
study. We begin with overviews of the different types of articles and papers professional
and student authors write.
This is followed by a discussion of ethical, legal, and professional standards in
publishing that all authors of scholarly work, regardless of the type of paper they are
writing or their level of experience, must be mindful of and abide by. For example,
research conducted with human participants or nonhuman animal subjects must be
approved by an institutional review board (IRB), institutional animal care and use
committee (IACUC), or another ethical committee. Similarly, an author writing about
human participants must protect their confidentiality while following best practices for
data sharing. Moreover, any written work, from a course paper to a published manuscript,
should represent an original contribution and include appropriate citations to the work of
others. Thus, scholarly writing and publishing, in all forms, are inherently embedded in
and guided by an ethical context.
Many types of articles are published in scientific journals, including quantitative,
qualitative, and mixed methods empirical articles and replications. These journal articles
report primary, or original, research—that is, research that has not been previously
formally published. Theoretical articles and methodological articles do not present
research but describe advancements in theories or methods. Journal articles that review or
synthesize findings from primary research include literature reviews and quantitative and
qualitative meta-analyses. By understanding the characteristics of different types of
articles and the types of information they most efficiently convey, you will be able to
select an article type that fits your research and to follow the appropriate journal article
reporting standards (discussed in Chapter 3). Students may write the same kinds of
articles that are published in journals, as well as student papers (including course
assignments, dissertations, and theses) not intended for publication in a journal.
In quantitative articles, authors report original, empirical, quantitative research.
Quantitative research refers to a set of approaches commonly used in the behavioral and
social sciences and related fields in which the observed outcomes are numerically
represented. The results of these studies are typically analyzed using methods (statistics,
data analyses, and modeling techniques) that rely on the numerical properties of the
measurement system. Quantitative research studies use a variety of experimental designs
and a range of analytic techniques. Some quantitative articles present novel hypotheses
and data analyses not considered or addressed in previous reports of related data. Within
the article, authors should describe elements of their study in the first person.
Authors of quantitative articles often report the findings of several conceptually
linked studies in one manuscript. These authors should make the rationale, logic, order,
and method of each study clear to readers. Headings should be used to label each study—
for instance, “Experiment 1,” “Experiment 2,” and so forth. This format organizes the
sections and makes them easier to discuss in the manuscript or in later research articles.
Method and Results subsections can appear under each study heading. If appropriate, the
authors can include a short subsection titled “Discussion” in which they explore the
implications of the results of each study, or they can combine the discussion with the
description of results under a heading such as “Results and Discussion.” Authors should
always include a comprehensive general discussion of all the studies at the end of the
article, which often has the heading “General Discussion.”
In qualitative articles, authors report original, empirical, qualitative research.
Qualitative research refers to scientific practices that are used to generate knowledge
about human experience and/or action, including social processes. Researchers analyze
data consisting of natural language (i.e., words), researcher observations (e.g., social
interactions), and/or participants’ expressions (e.g., artistic presentations) rather than
collecting numerical data and conducting mathematical analyses. Reports tend to show
the development of qualitative findings using natural language (although numbers may be
used adjunctively in describing or exploring these findings). Researchers often use an
iterative process of analysis in which they reexamine developing findings in light of
continued data analysis and refine the initial findings. In this way, the process of analysis
is self-correcting and can produce original knowledge. Researchers recursively combine
inquiry with methods that require researchers’ reflexivity about how their own
perspectives might support or impair the research process and thus how their methods
should best be enacted. Researchers tend to study experiences and actions whose
meaning may shift and evolve; therefore, they tend to view their findings as being
situated within place and time rather than seeking to develop laws that are expected to
remain stable regardless of context.
A variety of methods are reported in qualitative articles, and the structure of
qualitative articles varies depending on the nature of the study. For example, in case
studies researchers report analyses or observations obtained while working closely with
an individual, group, community, or organization. Case studies illustrate a problem in
depth; indicate a means for solving a problem; and/or shed light on needed research,
clinical applications, or theoretical matters. Qualitative articles also describe studies with
multiple participants, groups, communities, or organizations that identify commonalities
and/or differences across these entities. Such research can have a systemic focus,
examining the ways in which social processes, actions, or discourses are structured.
Regardless of the qualitative research approaches they use, when writing reports, authors
should carefully consider the balance between providing important illustrative material
and using confidential participant data responsibly.
In replication articles, authors report the results of work intended to verify or
reproduce findings from previous investigations. The aim of a replication study is to
examine whether the conclusions from an earlier study remain the same or similar over
variations in the conduct of the original study. There are internal and external forms of
replication; only external replications are addressed in APA journal article reporting
standards (see Section 3.10). An external replication occurs when researchers obtain a
new sample and duplicate, insofar as is possible or desirable, the features of the original
study being replicated. New design, measures, and/or data-analysis methods can also be
used to test whether a finding has generality beyond the particular situation studied in the
original work, but any such variations must be clearly specified in the report.
Researchers conducting an external replication should report sufficient
information to allow readers to determine whether the study was a direct (exact, literal)
replication, approximate replication, or conceptual (construct) replication. In a direct
replication, researchers repeat a study collecting data from a new sample in a way that
duplicates as far as possible the conditions of the earlier study. A direct replication is
called an exact replication or a literal replication when researchers use procedures that are
identical to the original experiment or duplicated as closely as possible (e.g., with
variations only in the location of the study and the investigators conducting the study).
These forms of replication are useful for establishing that the findings of the original
study are reliable. In an approximate replication (or a modified replication), researchers
incorporate alternative procedures and additional conditions into the features of the
original study; such replications usually contain the original study design along with
some additional study features. The purpose of an approximate or modified replication
may be not only to replicate a study but also to determine whether some factors not
included in the original formulation have an influence on the outcome. In a conceptual
replication, researchers introduce different techniques and manipulations to gain
theoretical information; it is possible that no features of the initial study are retained.
Researchers may use other labels for or descriptions of replications.
Meta-analysis refers to a collection of techniques in which researchers use the
findings from a group of related studies to draw a general conclusion (synthesis) based on
the extant research on a topic. Individual participant or subject data are not used in meta-
analyses because the data analyzed are at the study level. Just as the reporting standards
for quantitative and qualitative studies vary by study design, those for meta-analyses vary
by the particular questions asked in the study and the approaches used to answer those
questions. Because the study is the input unit for a meta-analysis, the studies included are
provided in the reference list and marked with an indicator that shows they were part of
the meta-analysis. This indicator distinguishes studies included in a meta-analysis from
other references. For example, in APA Style articles, references used in a meta-analysis
are preceded by an asterisk.
Within quantitative approaches, meta-analyses generally stipulate a technique in
which effect-size estimates from individual studies are the inputs to the analyses. Meta-
analysis is also used to determine factors that may be related to the magnitude of the
outcome in quantitative studies—for example, design factors (e.g., randomized vs.
nonrandomized), demographic factors (e.g., percentage of the study sample below the
poverty line), and so forth. Meta-analytic reports usually follow the same basic structure
as quantitative studies (see Section 1.1) and contain an introduction and Method, Results,
and Discussion sections. Researchers who use a quantitative meta-analytic approach
should follow the reporting standards for quantitative meta-analysis.
Within qualitative research, there are a variety of approaches to meta-analysis,
including qualitative metasynthesis, metaethnography, metamethod, and critical
interpretive synthesis. These approaches often use strategies from primary qualitative
analyses to synthesize findings across studies. Qualitative meta-analyses can be used to
highlight methodological trends, identify common findings and gaps, develop new
understandings, and propose future directions for an area of research. Qualitative meta-
analytic reports have a structure similar to that of qualitative primary reports, with the
addition of a description of the perspectives and situatedness of the authors of the primary
works included in the analysis. Qualitative meta-analyses do not entail a singular
procedure but rather an aggregating function common to meta-analytic approaches.
Qualitative meta-analyses are not to be confused with quantitative reviews, in which
authors generate a narrative description of a quantitative literature base. We recommend
referring to those studies as literature reviews or narrative literature reviews to avoid
confusion with qualitative meta-analyses.
Theoretical articles draw from existing research literature to advance theory.
Theoretical articles present empirical information only when it advances the theoretical
issue being explicated. Authors of theoretical articles trace the development of a theory to
expand and refine its constructs, present a new theory, or analyze an existing theory.
Typically, they point out flaws or demonstrate the advantage(s) of one theory over
another. Authors also may examine a theory’s internal consistency and external validity.
The order of sections in a theoretical article can vary. Methodological articles present
new approaches to research or practice, modifications of existing methods, or discussions
of quantitative and/or qualitative data analysis. These articles use empirical data
(quantitative, qualitative, or both) only as a means to illustrate an approach to research.
Some use simulated data to demonstrate how methods work under varying conditions
(e.g., different sample sizes, number of variables, level of nonnormality, size of
coefficients). Methodological articles provide sufficient detail for researchers to assess
the applicability of the methodology and its feasibility for the type of research problem it
is designed to study. Further, these articles allow readers to compare proposed methods
with those in current use. In methodological articles, highly technical materials (e.g.,
derivations, proofs, data generation, computer code, extensive details of simulations)
should be presented in appendices or as supplemental materials to improve overall article
readability. When having detailed information (e.g., parameters used in a simulation) is
necessary for readers to understand the major points being made, those details should be
presented in the text of the article.
Although the Publication Manual originated as a guide for authors seeking
publication in scholarly journals, it has been widely adopted by academic instructors,
departments, and institutions that require students to use APA Style when writing
scholarly papers. Students may write the same types of papers that are professionally
published (e.g., literature review articles) or assignments that fall outside that scope (e.g.,
dissertations, theses, essays, response or reaction papers, annotated bibliographies).
Likewise, this manual has historically addressed researchers working in the field of
psychology; however, students and researchers use APA Style in other fields and
disciplines, including social work, nursing, communications, education, and business.
Some journals in these fields require APA Style, and others do not. Other field-specific
requirements may also apply (e.g., nurses may have to adhere to a nurse’s code of ethics
rather than a psychologist’s code of ethics). Student assignments commonly written at the
undergraduate level include annotated bibliographies.
Dissertations or theses are typically required of graduate students, but
undergraduate students completing advanced research projects may write similar types of
papers. Academic institutions or departments have detailed guidelines for how to format
and write dissertations and theses, and the requirements and acceptable format vary by
discipline. Some dissertations and theses are hundreds of pages long and contain
thorough literature reviews and exhaustive reference lists, whereas others follow a
multiplearticle format consisting of several shorter, related papers that are intended for
individual publication. See Section 12.1 for guidance on adapting a dissertation or thesis
into a journal article. As mentioned in the introduction to this manual, most of the
guidelines in the Publication Manual can be applied to student papers. However, because
the scope of what constitutes a student paper is broad and flexible, and because students
submit papers to their academic institutions rather than to an APA journal, we do not
designate formal requirements for the nature or contents of an APA Style student paper.
Thus, questions about paper length, required sections, and so forth are best answered by
the instructor or institution setting the assignment. Students should follow the guidelines
and requirements developed by their instructors, departments, and/or academic
institutions when writing papers, including dissertations and theses; these guidelines and
requirements may entail adaptations of or additions to the APA Style guidelines
described in this manual. We encourage writers, instructors, departments, and academic
institutions using APA Style outside of the journal publication context to adapt APA
Style to fit their needs.
In addition to abiding by standards specific to writing and publishing, authors of
scholarly research should also follow ethical standards (e.g., Section 8, Research and
Publication, of the APA Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct,
hereinafter referred to as the APA Ethics Code; APA, 2017a and broader professional
standards when conducting a research study. Moreover, individuals engaged in
conducting, analyzing, or reporting any type of research should have acquired the
requisite skills and experience to do so competently. Writers in the social and behavioral
sciences work to uphold these goals and to follow the principles that have been
established by their professional disciplines. The guidance in this section is drawn from
the APA Ethics Code (APA, 2017a), which applies to all APA members regardless of
where they publish and contains standards that address the reporting and publishing of
scientific data. The APA Ethics Code is not a static document—it is revised over time to
reflect shifts or changes in the understanding and conception of the principles of
beneficence and nonmaleficence, fidelity and responsibility, integrity, justice, and respect
by the scientific community relative to advances in science and technology and evolving
cultural norms. Revised or new versions of the APA Ethics Code appear on the APA
website after adoption by the APA Council of Representatives.
B. Ensuring the Accuracy of Scientific Findings
Regardless of the type of article, attention to ethical concerns should begin long
before any manuscript is submitted for publication. Among the issues to carefully
consider while research is in the planning stages are those related to institutional
approval, informed consent, deception in research, participant protections, and data
sharing. Most journals, including APA journals, require authors submitting a manuscript
for publication to also submit forms affirming their compliance with ethical standards for
research and publication and disclosing their conflicts of interest, if any (see Section
12.13 for more information and a link to the APA ethical compliance form). We
encourage all authors, whether or not they will submit their manuscript to an APA
journal, to consult these ethics resources before beginning their research project and at
regular intervals throughout the research process. To ensure that they meet ethical
standards, before starting a research project, authors should contact the appropriate IRB
or ethical review group for their institution or country for information on the kinds of
research that require ethics approval, procedures for obtaining ethics approval, ethical
and research requirements, and so forth. Authors not affiliated with a university, hospital,
or other institution with an IRB are still expected to follow ethical standards in
conducting their research and should consult an external IRB if necessary. For more
information on IRBs, see the APA website.
Authors must not fabricate or falsify data (APA Ethics Code Standard 8.10a,
Reporting Research Results). Modifying results, including visual images, to support a
theory or hypothesis and omitting troublesome observations from a report to present a
more convincing story are also prohibited (APA Ethics Code Standard 5.01b, Avoidance
of False or Deceptive Statements). Similarly, representing data-generated hypotheses
(post hoc) as if they were preplanned is a violation of basic ethical principles. Reporting
standards, like the APA Ethics Code, are not static; changes are continually made to
improve how researchers report results. One of the more recent and important changes for
quantitative research reporting is that hypotheses should now be stated in three
groupings: preplanned–primary, preplanned–secondary, and exploratory (post hoc).
Exploratory hypotheses are allowable, and there should be no pressure to disguise them
as if they were preplanned. Similarly, qualitative researchers should transparently
describe their expectations at the outset of the research as part of their research reporting.
Careful preparation of manuscripts for publication is essential, but errors can still
appear in the final published article. When errors are substantive enough to affect
readers’ understanding of the research or their interpretation of the results, authors are
responsible for making such errors public. When a correction is needed, the first step is to
inform the editor and the publisher of the journal so that a formal correction notice
(erratum) can be published. The goal of such a notice is to openly and transparently
correct the knowledge base for current and future users of the information in the
published article. A correction notice is usually appended to the original article’s record
in research databases so that readers will retrieve it when they access either the article or
a database’s record for the article; at times, the article itself may also be corrected.
Occasionally, the problems with an article are so great (e.g., plagiarism,
fabrication or falsification of data, belatedly discovered calculation or measurement
errors that change the interpretation of the findings) that the entire article is retracted by
the author or authors, their institution, or the publisher. Whatever the reason for the
retraction, the intent is to remove the information from the scientific literature and thus
avoid wasting the time and resources of other scientists who might rely on or attempt to
replicate the compromised results. The retracted article may still be available in
databases; however, a retraction notice will accompany it to notify readers of its status.
Authors should avoid citing retracted articles unless the citation is essential; if authors do
cite a retracted article, its reference list entry should reflect that the article has been
retracted.
Authors are expected to retain the data associated with a published article in
accordance with institutional requirements; funder requirements; participant agreements;
and, when publishing in an APA journal, the APA Ethics Code (Standard 8.14, Sharing
Research Data for Verification). When planning a research study and before beginning
data collection, authors are encouraged to consider how the data will be retained (and
shared) and to outline clear data-handling procedures in the study protocol submitted to
an IRB or other ethics committee. During the informed consent process, authors should
describe to study participants the data they intend to collect, save, and/or share with other
researchers and obtain their approval. In qualitative studies, data sharing may not be
appropriate because of confidentiality, consent, and other limitations.
The APA Ethics Code prohibits authors from withholding data from qualified
requesters for verification through reanalysis in most circumstances (see Standard 8.14,
Sharing Research Data for Verification), as long as the confidentiality of the participants
is protected. The APA Ethics Code permits psychologists to require that a requester be
responsible for any costs associated with the provision of the data. Increasingly, funders
are also requiring that data be shared in an open- or securedaccess repository or that a
data-management plan otherwise be spelled out. Authors publishing in an APA journal
are invited to share their data on APA’s portal on the Open Science Framework
(https://osf.io/view/apa/). Notably, incentives are offered to researchers who wish to
share their data, such as Open Science Badges offered through the Center for Open
Science. Open Science Badges are awarded for the open sharing of materials used by
researchers in the process of data collection and analysis (e.g., instructions, stimuli, blank
questionnaires, treatment manuals, software, interview protocols, details of procedures,
code for mathematical models); source data, meaning the original written, electronic, or
audiovisual records of the study participants’ responses (e.g., paper questionnaires,
transcripts, output files, observational notes, video recordings); and analysis data,
meaning the processed version of the source data used to produce the analyses reported in
the paper.
Subject to the conditions and exceptions discussed next, authors are expected to
share data, analyses, and/or materials during the review and publication process if
questions arise with respect to the accuracy of the report. On request, the authors should
share the raw data with the journal’s editor and (if approved by the editor) with reviewers
to verify the reported analyses and data and to assess their rigor. If questions arise about
the integrity or processing of the source data, authors should also share access to them
with the editor on request. Costs of sharing data requested during the review process
should be borne by the authors. Similarly, students should expect to provide raw data to
faculty reviewing their dissertation, thesis, or research project. A journal editor has the
right to deny publication if the authors refuse to share requested materials or data during
the review process. In the case of student work, refusal to share requested materials or
data may result in a failing grade or defense.
Authors must make their data available after publication, subject to conditions and
exceptions, within the period of retention specified by their institution, journal, funder, or
other supporting organization. This permits other competent professionals to confirm the
reported analyses using the data on which the authors’ conclusions are based or to test
alternative analyses that address the article’s hypotheses (see APA Ethics Code Standard
8.14a, Sharing Research Data for Verification, and Standard 6.01, Documentation of
Professional and Scientific Work and Maintenance of Records). Competent professionals
are those who are currently accountable to a research institution or an educational
employer and who demonstrate sufficient training and credentials to understand the
research study’s background, methods, and analyses. The journal editor may be asked to
determine who qualifies as a competent professional given the topic of the research. See
Section 1.15 for additional considerations when sharing qualitative research data.
Typically, any additional costs of complying with a request for data beyond the
general standards of internal data maintenance (e.g., anonymization, transfer of data,
translation) should be borne by the requester, and these costs should be assessed at a
reasonable local rate for the necessary services and materials. If it emerges that authors
are unwilling or unable to share data for verification within the retention period, the
journal’s current editor may retract the article or issue an Expression of Concern about its
findings according to the policy of the publisher. Data and materials may sometimes be
requested after publication for purposes beyond the ones outlined previously. Regardless
of why the data and materials are requested, to avoid misunderstanding, it is important
that the researcher requesting data and the researcher providing it come to a written
agreement about the conditions under which the data are to be shared (see APA Ethics
Code Standard 8.14b, Sharing Research Data for Verification). Generally, such an
agreement specifies the limits on how the shared data may be used (e.g., for verification
of already published results, for inclusion in meta-analytic studies, for secondary
analysis), who may have access to the data (e.g., only the requester, the requester and
direct supervisees, anyone interested with no limits on further sharing), and how the
requester will store and dispose of the data. Furthermore, the agreement should specify
any limits on the dissemination of the results of analyses performed on the data (e.g.,
whether they can be published in conference presentations, internal reports, journal
articles, or book chapters) and any expectations for authorship of publications based on
shared data. Data-sharing arrangements must be entered into with proper consideration of
the rights of the copyright owner.
Authors may choose or be required to share data and/or materials openly by
posting them online. Journal editors may set a policy to encourage open sharing, to
require it, and/or to require authors to give a reason why data and materials cannot be
shared (e.g., risk to participant privacy). A permanent link to any data or materials to be
shared openly should be included in the article, such as in an Open Practices section in
the author note (see Section 2.7); the reference for the data set should also be included in
the reference list of the article (see Section 10.9 for how to cite). Federally funded or
grant-funded research is often subject to requirements for data sharing; see, for example,
the data-sharing policies of the National Institutes of Health.
Before sharing or posting data and materials for any purpose, researchers must
remove any personally identifiable information or code that would make it possible to
reestablish a link to an individual participant’s identity. Sometimes, a unique combination
of demographic or other public information can be used to establish a participant’s
identity, and this possibility must be kept in mind and avoided as well. Researchers
should consult the relevant policies of their institution or country (e.g., the European
Union General Data Protection Regulation [GDPR], the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act [HIPAA]) for regulations and guidance on conditions for sharing data
and deidentifying protected health information. In addition to protecting the
confidentiality of research participants, some proprietary arrangements may prohibit the
sharing of data and materials (e.g., data provided in confidence by a business entity, a
coding scheme developed commercially by the authors). Editors are responsible for
setting policy for their journal about the acceptability for publication of research resting
on proprietary arrangements, given that its accuracy and veracity cannot be checked in
the usual way. This policy may depend on the availability of alternative ways to satisfy
concerns about scientific integrity. For example, research using a proprietary personality
scale may be acceptable if enough qualified researchers subscribe to it that someone can
be found to help with independent verification.
Data are typically reproduced in qualitative research reports. Segments of data
(e.g., quotations from interviews) are presented to exemplify the process of analysis and
to demonstrate the grounding of the findings in the data. Because these raw data are
available for examination in the text of the article, they provide a basis by which readers,
as well as editors and reviewers during the manuscript review process, can evaluate (and
perhaps question) the appropriateness of the conclusions reached. The obligation to
protect participants’ confidentiality can present special ethical issues for qualitative data
sharing. For instance, raw data from a qualitative study involving multiple detailed stories
about participants’ lives may contain details that are necessary to make the data
meaningful but that can be revealing in compromising ways when triangulated.
Qualitative research may also involve intensive case studies of people who were selected
because of their unique attributes. Although the researchers may try to mask participants’
identities within a manuscript, it may not be possible to retain all that is meaningful to
evaluate an analysis and at the same time protect participants’ confidentiality if the
complete data set is shared. The high burden on the researchers to remove all information
that can lead to the identification of a participant is unjustifiable if it produces a set of
data that is stripped of meaning. As a result, the researchers may instead need to withhold
data to ensure participant confidentiality (see McCurdy & Ross, 2018, on the sometimes
prohibitive complications of this process).
There is also the consideration that participants may give consent to participate in
a study to a specific group of researchers and may not extend that consent to other
researchers. This may be of particular concern with vulnerable populations. For instance,
lesbian participants may consent to have their data analyzed by researchers who are in
their community and who seek to support their rights, but that consent may not apply to
other researchers with different motivations. Likewise, some researchers spend years
developing the trust to collect and analyze data from a community, and community
members may not extend that trust to other groups of researchers. Indeed, communities
may be owners or co-owners of the data themselves and may refuse to share the data
(DuBois et al., 2018; Tuck & Yang, 2014). As a result, the relationship between the
researchers and the participants is an important ethical consideration and one that may
contraindicate data sharing.
Many qualitative researchers view their own history and epistemological
perspectives as legitimate influences on the process of inquiry. Thus, when sharing data
from qualitative research, the researchers’ perspectives and experiences must be taken
into account. Research can be compromised if researchers are unreflective or not
purposeful or explicit about this influence. However, when researchers are aware, they
can deliberately elaborate on the investigative attitudes (e.g., phenomenological
bracketing), personal experiences (e.g., ethnographic study), research teams (e.g.,
including researchers from the communities under analysis), or analytic lenses (e.g.,
critical theories) that enrich their research and thereby deepen the acuity they bring to the
analytic task (Guishard et al., 2018). These qualitative researchers would not necessarily
expect editors or external researchers to interpret their research in the same way when
evaluating their analysis because they may not share their perspectives.
Misrepresentation of data as original when they have been published previously is
specifically prohibited by the APA Ethics Code (Standard 8.13, Duplicate Publication of
Data). Duplicate publication distorts the knowledge base by making it appear that more
information is available than actually exists. It also wastes scarce resources (journal
pages and the time and efforts of editors and reviewers). The prohibition against duplicate
publication is especially critical for the cumulative knowledge of the field. Duplicate
publication can give the erroneous impression that findings are more replicable than is
the case or that particular conclusions are more strongly supported than is warranted by
the cumulative evidence. Duplicate publication can also lead to copyright violations;
authors cannot assign the copyright for the same material to more than one publisher.
When submitting a manuscript for publication, authors are obligated to disclose whether
they have posted the manuscript online, either in full or in substantial part; some editors
may consider such posting to be prior publication.
The policy regarding duplicate publication also means that the same or
overlapping material that has appeared in a publication offered for public sale, such as
conference proceedings or a book chapter, should not be republished elsewhere because
these sources are considered widely available. For example, a brief report is published in
an APA journal with the understanding that an extended report will not be published
elsewhere because APA brief reports include sufficient descriptions of methodology to
allow for replication; the brief report is the archival record for the work. The policy
regarding duplicate publication has some exclusions. Manuscripts previously published in
abstracted form (e.g., in conference proceedings) or in a periodical with limited
circulation or availability (e.g., report by a university department or government agency,
dissertation) can be published again in a venue of wide circulation (e.g., in a journal).
Consult a journal editor to determine whether a study reported in a dissertation or thesis
or posted in a preprint repository could benefit from peer review and publication as a
journal article.
Authors are obligated to present work as parsimoniously and completely as
possible within the space constraints of journal articles. Data that can be meaningfully
combined within a single article should be presented together to enhance effective
communication. Piecemeal, or fragmented, publication of research findings can be
misleading if multiple reports appear to represent independent instances of data collection
or analyses; distortion of the scientific literature, especially in reviews or meta-analyses,
may result. Piecemeal publication of the results from a single study is therefore
undesirable unless there is a clear reason for doing so. It may be quite difficult to
determine whether a valid reason exists; therefore, authors who submit manuscripts based
on studies or data presented in other published or submitted works should inform the
journal editor of the source and extent of the overlap, and they should detail how their
submission builds on the previous reports. Whether the publication of two or more
reports based on the same or on closely related research constitutes fragmented
publication is a matter of editorial judgment.
Longitudinal or large-scale studies are another instance when multiple
publications are often appropriate because the data at different time points make
independent scientific contributions. Further, useful knowledge should be made available
to others as soon as possible, which is precluded if publication is delayed until all the
studies are complete. Multiple reports may be needed in some qualitative and mixed
methods research when qualitative data collection and analysis produce volumes of
findings that are not appropriate for publication in a single article—for instance, when
investigators conduct interviews to explore questions that have distinct purposes and are
meaningful in relation to separate literatures and concerns. With mixed methods studies,
authors might publish multiple articles, such as a qualitative study, a quantitative study,
and a mixed methods overview study, each focusing on new insights based on findings
across the methods.
Whether the publication of two or more reports based on the same or closely
related research constitutes piecemeal publication is a matter of editorial judgment, as is
the determination of whether the manuscript meets other publication criteria. Authors
should note in the manuscript all prior works related to the study by including them in the
reference list and citing them in the text (see the previous section on acknowledging and
citing previous work). When submitting the manuscript, authors must inform the journal
editor in a cover letter of any similar manuscripts that have already been published,
accepted for publication, or submitted for concurrent consideration to the same journal or
elsewhere. The editor can then make an informed judgment as to whether the submitted
manuscript includes sufficient new information to warrant consideration. If the authors’
identities are masked for review, references to previous work should be concealed as well
until after the review process. If, during the review or production process, a manuscript is
discovered to be in violation of duplicate or piecemeal publication policies and the
authors failed to inform the editor of the potential for violation, then the manuscript can
be rejected without further consideration. If such a violation is discovered after
publication in an APA journal, appropriate action, such as retraction by the publisher or
notice of duplicate publication, can be taken.
C. Protecting the Rights and Welfare of Research Participants and Subjects
When authors describe their research, they are prohibited from disclosing
“confidential, personally identifiable information concerning their clients/patients,
students, research participants, organizational clients, or other recipients of their services”
(APA Ethics Code Standard 4.07, Use of Confidential Information for Didactic or Other
Purposes) unless participants give documented consent to disclose their identities. The
exact requirements for documentation vary depending on the nature of the consent
obtained and the type of study. Confidentiality in case studies can, at times, be difficult to
achieve. For example, the researcher might obtain written consent from the subject of the
report to publish the study. The researcher must be careful not to exploit the subject—for
example, when the researcher has supervisory, evaluative, or other authority over them,
as in the case of a client, patient, supervisee, employee, or organizational client (see APA
Ethics Code Standard 3.08, Exploitative Relationships, and Standard 3.05, Multiple
Relationships). In some types of qualitative research (e.g., participatory action research,
autoethnography), the participants may be investigators and authors, meaning they will
be personally identifiable. Participant-authors or participant-investigators should retain
control over what information about them is presented in the report (see Section 1.15 for
more on sharing data from qualitative research).
In all scientific disciplines, professional communications are presumed to be
based on objective and unbiased interpretations of evidence. Transparency about
researchers’ positions in relation to their evidence and interpretations is central. For
example, authors’ economic and commercial interests in products or services used in a
study or discussed in a manuscript may color their ability to collect evidence and interpret
it with fidelity. Although the presence of such interests does not necessarily constitute an
unethical conflict of interest per se, the integrity of the field requires open and honest
disclosure of the possibilities of such influences when they may exist. In general, an
author’s safest and most transparent course of action is to disclose in an author note
activities and relationships that, if known to others, might be viewed as a conflict of
interest, even if the author does not believe that any conflict or bias exists. Whether an
interest is significant depends on individual circumstances and cannot be defined by a
threshold amount. Holdings in a company through a mutual fund are not ordinarily
sufficient to warrant disclosure, whereas salaries, research grants, consulting fees, and
personal stock holdings should be disclosed. Participation on a board of directors or any
other relationship with an entity that is in some way part of the research project should
also be carefully considered for possible disclosure. In addition to disclosing possible
influences that might lead authors to support certain findings, authors should also
consider disclosing when circumstances could influence them against a product, service,
facility, or person. For example, having a copyright or royalty interest in a competing
psychological test or assessment protocol might be seen as a possible source of negative
bias against another test instrument.
D. Protecting Intellectual Property Rights
Authorship is reserved for persons who make a substantial contribution to and
who accept responsibility for a published work. Individuals should take authorship credit
only for work they have performed or to which they have substantially contributed (APA
Ethics Code Standard 8.12a, Publication Credit). Authorship encompasses, therefore, not
only persons who do the writing but also those who have made substantial scientific
contributions to a study. Substantial professional contributions may include formulating
the problem or hypothesis, structuring the experimental study design, organizing and
conducting the analysis, or interpreting the results and findings. Those who so contribute
are listed as authors in the byline. Lesser contributions, which do not constitute
authorship, may be acknowledged in the author note.
As early as practicable in a research project, the collaborators should decide
which tasks are necessary for the project’s completion, how the work will be divided,
which tasks or combination of tasks merits authorship credit, and on what level credit
will be given (first author, second author, etc.). Collaborators may need to reassess
authorship credit and order if relative contributions change in the course of the project
(and its publication). This is especially true in faculty–student collaborations when
students need more intensive supervision than originally anticipated, when additional
analyses are required beyond the scope of a student’s current level of training, or when
the level of the student’s contribution exceeds what was originally anticipated. When a
manuscript is accepted for publication, each person listed in the byline must verify in
writing that they (a) agree to serve as an author, (b) approve the order of authorship
presented in the byline, and (c) accept the responsibilities of authorship.
Authors are responsible for determining authorship and for specifying the order in
which two or more authors’ names appear in the byline. Principal authorship and the
order of authorship credit should accurately reflect the relative contributions of persons
involved (APA Ethics Code Standard 8.12b, Publication Credit). Relative status (e.g.,
department chair, junior faculty member, student) should not determine the order of
authorship. The general rule is that the name of the principal contributor appears first,
with subsequent names appearing in order of decreasing contribution. In some cases,
another principal contributor appears last. These conventions can vary from field to field
and from journal to journal. Novice authors are advised to contact the editor of the
journal to which they are submitting a manuscript for guidance. If authors played equal
roles in the research and publication of their study, they may wish to note this in the
author note.
Because doctoral work is expected to result in an independent and original
contribution to the field by the student, except under rare circumstances, the student
should be listed as the principal author of any papers with multiple authors that are
substantially based on their dissertation (APA Ethics Code Standard 8.12c, Publication
Credit). Unusual exceptions to doctoral student first authorship might occur when the
dissertation is published as part of a collection of studies involving other researchers or
when work on a final manuscript was performed substantially by a coauthor. Whether
students merit principal authorship on papers based on master’s-level or other predoctoral
research will depend on their specific contributions to the research. When master’s-level
students make the primary contribution to a study, they should be listed as the first
author. Students may also collaborate with a faculty member on a faculty-originated
project as a way to acquire the skills to make a primary scientific contribution in their
master’s thesis. In such cases, authorship should be determined by the relative
contributions of the student and faculty member to the project.
Editorial review of a manuscript requires that the editors and reviewers circulate
and discuss the manuscript. During the review process, the manuscript is a confidential
and privileged document. Editors and reviewers may not, without the authors’ explicit
permission, quote from a manuscript under review or circulate copies of it to others,
including graduate or postdoctoral students, for any purpose other than editorial review
(APA Ethics Code Standard 8.15, Reviewers; see Section 12.7 for a detailed discussion
of the peer review process). If a reviewer wishes to consult with a colleague about some
aspect of the manuscript, the reviewer must request permission from the editor prior to
approaching the colleague. Publishers have different policies on how editorial review
works, and reviewers should consult the editor for any questions. In addition, editors and
reviewers may not use material from an unpublished manuscript to advance their own or
others’ work without the authors’ consent.
Authors are protected by federal statute against unauthorized use of their
unpublished manuscripts. Under the Copyright Act of 1976 (Title 17 of the United States
Code), an unpublished work is copyrighted “automatically from the moment the original
work of authorship is fixed” (U.S. Copyright Office, 2017, p. 1), referring to the moment
in which a work exists in any tangible form—for example, typed on a page. Until authors
formally transfer copyright (see Section 12.20), they own the copyright on an
unpublished manuscript; all exclusive rights due the copyright owner of a published work
are also due the authors of an unpublished work. To ensure copyright protection,
publishers include the copyright notice on all published works (e.g., Copyright [year] by
[name of copyright holder]). The notice need not appear on unpublished works;
nonetheless, it is recommended that authors include a copyright notice on all works,
whether published or not. Registration of copyright.
E. Required and Paper Elements
Paper elements appear in various combinations depending on the nature of the
work. Manuscripts submitted for publication (see Sections 1.1 –1.9) should always
include a title page (see Section 2.3), which contains the paper title (see Section 2.4),
author names and affiliations (see Sections 2.5 –2.6), and author note (see Section 2.7);
page headers with a running head and page numbers (see Sections 2.8 and 2.18); an
abstract (see Section 2.9); text (see Section 2.11); and a reference list (see Section 2.12).
Papers may also include keywords (see Section 2.10), footnotes (see Section 2.13), tables
(see Chapter 7), figures (see Chapter 7), appendices (see Section 2.14), and/or
supplemental materials (see Section 2.15). Authors seeking publication should refer to
the journal’s instructions for authors or manuscript submission guidelines for any
requirements that are different from or in addition to those specified by APA Style.
The title should summarize the main idea of the paper simply and, if possible, in a
way that is engaging for readers. For research papers, it should be a concise statement of
the main topic of the research and should identify the variables or theoretical issues under
investigation and the relationship between them. Although there is no prescribed limit for
title length in APA Style, authors are encouraged to keep their titles focused and succinct.
Research has shown an association between simple, concise titles and higher numbers of
article downloads and citations. Include essential terms in the title to enhance readers’
ability to find your work during a search and to aid abstracting and indexing in databases
if the work is published. Avoid words that serve no purpose; they increase the title length
and can mislead indexers. For example, the words “method” and “results” do not
normally appear in a title, nor should such phrases as “a study of” or “an experimental
investigation of.” Occasionally terms such as “research synthesis,” “meta-analysis,” or
“fMRI study” convey important information for potential readers and are included in the
title. Avoid using abbreviations in a title; spelling out all terms helps ensure accurate,
complete indexing of the article and allows readers to more readily comprehend its
meaning. When an animal name —for example, “Rat” —is in the title, also include the
scientific name in italics and parentheses —(Rattus norvegicus).
Every paper includes the name of the author or authors —the byline. The
preferred form of an author’s name is first name, middle initial(s), and last name; this
form reduces the likelihood of mistaken identity (e.g., that authors with the same first and
last names are the same person). To assist researchers and librarians, use the same form
of your name for publication throughout your career when possible; for example, do not
use a middle initial on one paper and omit the initial on a different paper. Determining
whether, for example, Marisol G. Rodríguez is the same person as M. G. Rodríguez can
be difficult, particularly when citations span years and institutional affiliations change. If
you change your name during your career, present your new name in a consistent form as
well. Omit all professional titles (e.g., Dr., Professor) and academic degrees or licenses
(e.g., PhD, EdD, MD, MA, RN, MSW, LCSW) from the byline.
The format of the affiliation depends on the number of authors and whether
different authors have different affiliations, as follows. Begin the affiliation(s) on a new
line after the byline. Place different affiliations on their own lines. Do not add blank lines
between affiliations or between the byline and the first affiliation. See Table 2.2 for
examples of how to set up author bylines and affiliations. All Authors Share One
Affiliation. If the paper has one author with one affiliation, or if all authors of a
multiauthored paper share one affiliation, include the affiliation centered and in standard
font on its own line, beginning one line below the byline. Do not include a superscript
numeral. All Authors Share Two Affiliations. If the paper has one author with two
affiliations, or if all authors of a multiauthored paper share the same two affiliations,
include each affiliation centered and in standard font on its own line, beginning one line
below the byline.
Do not include superscript numerals. Multiple Authors With Different
Affiliations. If the paper has two or more authors with different affiliations (even if only
the department is different within the same university), use superscript Arabic numerals
to connect author names to the appropriate affiliation(s). List authors’ affiliations in the
order the authors appear in the byline; for example, for a paper with two authors who
have different affiliations, list the affiliation of the first author first, followed by the
affiliation of the second author, with each affiliation centered and in standard font on its
own line, beginning one line below the byline. Place a superscript numeral 1 after the
first author’s surname, without a space between the name and the numeral (when a paper
has three or more authors and thus commas appear after author names, put the numeral
after the surname and before the comma). Then put a corresponding superscript numeral
1 before the corresponding affiliation (with a space between the numeral and the start of
the affiliation). Repeat this process for the second author using the numeral 2 (and so on
when a paper has more authors).
An author note provides additional information about authors, study registration,
data sharing, disclaimers or statements regarding conflicts of interest, and help or funding
that supported the research. It also provides a point of contact for interested readers.
Student papers do not typically include an author note. Arrange the author note into
separate paragraphs; if a paragraph is not applicable to your manuscript, omit it from the
author note. Also, the following requirements apply for manuscripts submitted to APA
journals; other publishers may have different requirements (e.g., some journals require
authors to provide disclosures and acknowledgments on a separate page at the end of the
manuscript rather than in the author note). If the article is based on data used in a
previously published report (e.g., a longitudinal study), doctoral dissertation, or
conference presentation, disclose this information, and include an in-text citation. For
example, write “This article is based on data published in Pulaski (2017)” or “This article
is based on the dissertation completed by Graham (2018)” and include an entry for
Pulaski (2017) or Graham (2018) in the reference list. Also acknowledge the publication
of related reports (e.g., reports on the same data). In addition, indicate in this paragraph
whether any author has a possible or perceived conflict of interest (e.g., ownership of
stock in a company that manufactures a drug used in the study); if not, state that no
conflict of interest exists. If your employer or granting organization requires a disclaimer
stating, for example, that the research reported does not reflect the views of that
organization, include such a statement in this paragraph and follow the format or wording
prescribed by that organization.
Complete and accurate funding information for your article should be included in
the author note. Report the names of all funding organizations; all grant, fellowship, or
award numbers and/or names; the names of the funding recipients; and the names of
principal investigators (if any) for the funded research. Do not precede grant numbers by
“No.” or “#” (e.g., write “We received funding from Grant A-123 from the National
Science Foundation” or “National Science Foundation Grant A-123 funded this work,”
not “Grant No. A-123” or “Grant #A-123”). Next, acknowledge colleagues who assisted
in conducting the study or critiquing the manuscript but who are not authors of the work.
Study participants may be acknowledged for exceptional contributions if desired. Then
provide any thanks for personal assistance, such as in manuscript preparation or
copyediting. End this paragraph by explaining any special agreements concerning
authorship, such as if authors contributed equally to the study. Do not acknowledge the
people routinely involved in the review and acceptance of manuscripts in this paragraph,
such as peer reviewers, editors, associate editors, and consulting editors of the journal to
which you are submitting the manuscript. If you would like to acknowledge a specific
idea raised by a reviewer or journal editor, do so in a footnote in the text where the idea is
discussed.
The running head is an abbreviated version of the paper title that appears at the
top of every page to identify it for readers, especially readers of a print copy of the
published article. Running heads are required only for manuscripts being submitted for
publication. Running heads are not required for student papers unless the instructor or
institution requests them; thus, the header for a student paper includes only the page
number. Authors should supply the running head rather than leave this task to the
publisher because authors are best able to select the most important words for an
abbreviated title. The running head does not have to consist of the same words in the
same order as the title; rather, the idea of the title should be conveyed in a shortened
form. For example, an article titled “Restless Nights: Sleep Latency Increases and Sleep
Quality Decreases With Caffeine Intake” can have a running head of
“CAFFEINEINDUCED REDUCTIONS IN SLEEP EFFICIENCY.” The running head
should contain a maximum of 50 characters, counting letters, punctuation, and spaces
between words as characters. If the title is already 50 characters or fewer, the full title can
be used as the running head. Avoid using abbreviations in the running head; however, the
ampersand symbol (&) may be used rather than “and” if desired.
An abstract is a brief, comprehensive summary of the contents of the paper.
Authors writing for publication should follow the reporting standards for abstracts
presented in Section 3.3. Most scholarly journals require an abstract. For any journal-
specific instructions, consult the instructions for authors or the webpage of the journal to
which you plan to submit your article. For example, some journals publish a public
significance statement, which summarizes the significance of the study for a general
audience, along with the abstract. An abstract is not usually required for student papers
unless requested by the instructor or institution.
Keywords are words, phrases, or acronyms that describe the most important
aspects of your paper. They are used for indexing in databases and help readers find your
work during a search. For manuscripts being submitted to APA journals, provide three to
five keywords describing the content. Keywords are not required for student papers
unless requested by the instructor or institution. Write the label “Keywords:” (in italic)
one line below the abstract, indented 0.5 in. like a regular paragraph, followed by the
keywords in lowercase (but capitalize proper nouns; see Section 6.14), separated by
commas. The keywords can be listed in any order. Do not use a period or other
punctuation after the last keyword (see the sample professional paper at the end of this
chapter). If the keywords run onto a second line, the second line is not indented.
The text, or body of the paper, contains the authors’ main contribution to the
literature. Both professional and student authors should follow the content and formatting
guidelines described in this chapter and the citation principles described in Chapters 8
and 9; researchers preparing manuscripts for publication should also review the reporting
standards for quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods research, as appropriate,
described in Chapter 3. For guidance on the contents of various types of papers, see
Sections 1.1 to 1.10. The text can be organized in many ways, and the organization
generally depends on the paper type (see also Sections 1.1 – 1.10). Most papers include
an introduction that addresses the importance of the work, contextualizes the work within
the existing literature, and states the aims of the work. Beyond the introduction, the paper
should include paragraphs or sections explaining the main premises of the paper. There
are many possible formats for the rest of the text; for example, a quantitative research
paper typically includes sections called “Method,” “Results,” and “Discussion,” whereas
a qualitative research paper may include a section called “Findings” instead of “Results,”
or it may have different section headings altogether, depending on the nature of the
inquiry. A brief student paper (e.g., a response paper) may not have section headings or
may have sections with headings different from those described in this manual.
The reference list provides a reliable way for readers to locate the works authors
cite to acknowledge previous scholarship. References are used to document and
substantiate statements made about the literature, just as data in the paper are used to
support interpretations and conclusions. The references cited in the paper do not need to
be exhaustive but should be sufficient to support the need for your research and to enable
readers to place it in the context of previous research and theorizing. A footnote is a brief
note that provides additional content or copyright attribution. Any type of paper may
include footnotes. Content footnotes supplement or enhance substantive information in
the text; they should not include complicated, irrelevant, or nonessential information.
Because they can be distracting to readers, content footnotes should be included only if
they strengthen the discussion. A content footnote should convey just one idea; if you
find yourself creating paragraphs or displaying equations as you are writing a footnote,
then the main text or an appendix would likely be a more suitable place to present the
information. Another alternative is to indicate in a short footnote that supplemental
material is available online.
When authors reproduce lengthy quotations and/or test or scale items in the text, a
copyright attribution is usually required and should be presented in a footnote. A
reproduced table or figure also requires a copyright attribution, but this attribution
appears in the table or figure note. Number all footnotes consecutively in the order in
which their callouts appear in the text with superscript Arabic numerals. Footnote
callouts should be superscripted, like this,1 following any punctuation mark except a
dash. A footnote callout that appears with a dash —like this2 —always precedes the dash.
(The callout falls inside a closing parenthesis if it applies only to matter within the
parentheses, like this.3 ) Do not put a space before the footnote callout in text. Do not
place footnote callouts in headings. To refer to a footnote again after it has been called
out, identify it in the text by the footnote number (e.g., write “see Footnote 3”); do not
repeat the footnote callout or the whole footnote.
Sometimes authors wish to include material that supplements the paper’s content
but that would be distracting or inappropriate in the text of the paper. Such material can
often be included in an appendix, which is included in the print and electronic versions of
the article, or in supplemental materials (see Section 2.15), which are available in an
online-only supplemental archive that the publisher maintains. Include an appendix only
if it helps readers understand, evaluate, or replicate the study or theoretical argument
being made. Be sure that all relevant ethical standards have been followed for materials
placed in the appendices, including copyright attribution, accurate representation of data,
and protection of human participants.
Supplemental materials should include enough information to make their content
interpretable when accompanied by the published text. Also keep in mind accessibility
guidelines as they pertain to online or interactive materials to ensure that your files are
not only openable but also accessible to all readers.1 Complete data sets should be made
available, as appropriate, in online repositories or archives (see Section 10.9 for the
reference format) or in supplemental materials. See Sections 1.14 and 1.15 for more on
data retention and sharing. Because this content may be useful to the field, APA and
many other publishers make it possible to provide supplemental materials to a wide
audience by posting them online and placing a link with the published article. These files
(like appendices) then become part of the primary journal record and cannot be
augmented, altered, or deleted. As such, materials for inclusion in supplemental materials
should be submitted in formats that are widely accessible. We recommend checking with
the journal publisher for preferred file types and any limitations.
F. Format and Organization
Use the guidelines in this section to format all APA Style papers. The physical
appearance of a paper can enhance or detract from it. A well-prepared paper encourages
editors and reviewers, as well as instructors in the case of student work, to view authors’
work as professional. In contrast, mechanical flaws can lead reviewers or instructors to
misinterpret content or question the authors’ expertise or attention to detail, and students
may receive a lower grade because of formatting errors. For manuscripts being submitted
for publication, publishers will use your word-processing file to produce the typeset
version of your article, so it is important that you properly format your article.
All papers should contain the page number, flush right, in the header of every
page. Use the automatic page-numbering function of your word-processing pro-gram to
insert page numbers in the top right corner; do not type page numbers manually. The title
page is page number 1. Manuscripts being submitted for publication should contain the
running head (see Section 2.8) in the page header in addition to the page number. When
both elements appear, the running head should be flush left and the page number should
be flush right. Student papers need only the page number in the page header, unless the
instructor or institution also requires a running head.
APA Style papers should be written in a font that is accessible to all users.
Historically, sans serif fonts have been preferred for online works and serif fonts for print
works; however, modern screen resolutions can typically accommodate either type of
font, and people who use assistive technologies can adjust font settings to their
preferences. Thus, a variety of font choices are permitted in APA Style; also check with
your publisher, instructor, or institution for any requirements regarding font. Special
characters are accented letters and other diacritical marks, Greek letters, math signs, and
symbols. Type special characters using the special character functions of your word-
processing program or a plug-in such as MathType. Characters that are not available
should be presented as images.
Double-space the entire paper, including the title page, abstract, text, headings,
block quotations, reference list, table and figure notes, and appendices. Use 1-in. (2.54-
cm) margins on all sides (top, bottom, left, and right) of the page. This is the default page
margin in most wordprocessing programs. Dissertations and theses may have different
requirements if they are to be bound (e.g., 1.5-in. left margins). Align the text to the left
and leave the right margin uneven (“ragged”). Do not use full justification, which adjusts
the spacing between words to make all lines the same length (flush with the margins). Do
not manually divide words at the end of a line, and do not use the hyphenation function to
break words at the ends of lines. Do not manually insert line breaks into long DOIs or
URLs; however, breaks in DOIs or URLs applied automatically by a word-processing
program are permissible.
Indent the first line of every paragraph 0.5 in. For consistency, use the tab key or
the automatic paragraph-formatting function of your word-processing program. The
default settings in most word-processing programs are acceptable. The remaining lines of
the paragraph should be left-aligned. Journals differ in the average length of articles they
publish; consult the journal’s instructions for authors to determine the appropriate length
for the type of article you are submitting. The length for student papers is determined by
the assignment guidelines. If a paper exceeds the target length, shorten it by stating points
clearly and directly, confining discussion to the specific problem under investigation,
deleting or combining data displays, eliminating repetition across sections, and writing in
the active voice. For guidance on improving sentence and paragraph length, see Section
4.6. A professional paper that is still too long may need to be divided into two or more
papers, each with a more specific focus (however, see Section 1.16 on piecemeal
publication).
Paper length targets may be specified by either page count or word count; we
recommend word count because different fonts are slightly different sizes and may
produce variations in the number of pages. In general, to determine the page count, count
every page, including the title page and reference list. Likewise, to determine word count,
count every word from beginning to end, including all in-text citations, reference entries,
tables, figures (other than words in a figure image, which may not be captured by word
count), and appendices. The default settings of the word-count function of your word-
processing program are acceptable for determining the word count. Do not count text in
the page header (i.e., running head and/or page numbers) or manually add any words
within figure images to the word count (these words are generally not included in the
automatic word count in programs such as Microsoft Word, Academic Writer, or Google
Docs). If the journal to which you are submitting has different specifications for
determining the page count or word count, follow the instructions of the journal.
In scholarly writing, sound organizational structure is the key to clear, precise,
and logical communication. Before beginning to write, consider the best paper length and
structure for your findings. Ordering your thoughts logically at both sentence and
paragraph levels will also strengthen the impact of your writing. Headings in a document
identify the topic or purpose of the content within each section. Headings help readers
become familiar with how a paper’s content is organized, allowing them to easily find the
information they seek. Headings should be succinct yet long enough to describe the
content; see the sample papers at the end of this chapter for examples of effective
headings. Concise headings help readers anticipate key points and track the development
of your argument. Headings that are well formatted and clearly worded aid both visual
and nonvisual readers of all abilities.
APA Style headings have five possible levels: Level 1 headings are used for top-
level or main sections, Level 2 headings are subsections of Level 1, and so on. Regardless
of the number of levels of subheading within a section, the heading structure for all
sections follows the same top-down progression. Each section starts with the highest
level of heading, even if one section has fewer levels of subheading than another section.
For example, in a paper with Level 1 Method, Results, and Discussion headings, the
Method and Results sections may each have two levels of subheading (Levels 2 and 3),
and the Discussion section may have only one level of subheading (Level 2). Thus, there
would be three levels of heading for the paper overall.
