Home⇛Psychology and Education: A Multidisciplinary Journal⇛vol. 49 no. 5 (2025)

A Sharing of Insights on the Issues Involving Research: A Commentary Review

Ed Raphael Espinoza

Discipline: Education

 

Abstract:

This commentary review provides a critical, reflective, and scholarly discussion on key issues in educational research. It aims to synthesize existing knowledge, highlight current debates, and offer insights that may influence educational theory, practice, and policy. By summarizing and interpreting relevant literature, it critically examines prevailing ideas, identifies methodological and ethical challenges, and explores emerging trends shaping contemporary research. The review emphasizes the importance of addressing ethical dilemmas, methodological flaws, and policy gaps through evidence-based reflection and scholarly dialogue. Drawing from diverse academic sources and professional experiences, it underscores the role of commentary reviews in promoting research rigor, reflexivity, and social relevance. Furthermore, it offers conceptual clarity and practical guidance to researchers encountering methodological or ethical challenges, helping them ground their responses in literature and align practices with ethical and institutional standards. Ultimately, this commentary review bridges the gap between theory and practice and advocates for the periodic updating of such reviews to reflect ongoing developments and sustain research integrity.



References:

  1. Adams, J. (2013). The fourth age of research. Nature, 497(7451), 557–560. https://doi.org/10.1038/497557a
  2. Ali, A., & Kohun, F. (2007). Dealing with social isolation to minimize doctoral attrition. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 2, 33–49.
  3. Allen, L., O’Connell, A., & Kiermer, V. (2019). How can we ensure visibility and diversity in research contributions? How the Credit taxonomy is helping the shift from authorship to contributorship. Learned Publishing, 32(1), 71–74. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1210
  4. AlphaSense. (n.d.). Expert network companies: A buyer’s guide. https://www.alpha-sense.com/blog/product/expert-network-companies-buyers-guide
  5. Altheide, D. L. (1987). Ethnographic Content Analysis. Qualitative Sociology, 10(1-2), 65–77. https://doi:10.1007/BF00988269    
  6. Amancio, D. R., Nunes, M. G. V., Oliveira Jr., O. N., & Costa, L. F. (2010). Good practices for a literature survey are not followed by authors while preparing scientific manuscripts. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/1005.3063
  7. American Association of University Professors. (2025). 2024–25 AAUP Faculty Compensation Survey Results. Retrieved from https://www.aaup.org/news/2024-25-aaup-faculty-compensation-survey-results
  8. Amherst College Writing Center. (n.d.). Reverse outline. Retrieved from https://www.amherst.edu/academiclife/support/writingcenter/resourcesforwriters/revision/reverse_outline
  9. An Act Strengthening the Philippine Comprehensive Policy on Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) Prevention, Treatment, Care, and Support, and, Reconstituting the Philippine National Aids Council (PNAC), Repealing for the Purpose Republic Act No. 8504, Otherwise Known as The "Philippine Aids Prevention and Control Act of 1998", and Appropriating Funds Therefore, REPUBLIC ACT No. 11166 (2018) (Phil.), https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2018/ra_11166_2018.html#:~:text=Thus%20unless%20otherwise%20provided%20in,and%20social%20rights%20are%20protected.
  10. Bair, C. R., & Haworth, J. G. (2004). Doctoral student attrition and persistence: A meta-synthesis of research. Research in Higher Education, 45(3), 269-288.
  11. Balehegn, M. (2017). Predatory journals and the perils of publishing per pressure. The Pan African Medical Journal, 27, 219. https://doi.org/10.11604/pamj.2017.27.219.13637
  12. Bammer, G. (2013). Disciplining interdisciplinarity: Integration and implementation sciences for researching complex real-world problems. ANU Press.
  13. Baylor University Graduate Writing Center. (2024, February 9). Reverse outlining for effective revision. Retrieved from https://blogs.baylor.edu/gwc/2024/02/09/reverse-outlining-for-effective-revision/
  14. Becker, A. L. (2007). Discourses of Conflict: Dialectics in Modern Chinese Political Culture. Stanford University Press.
  15. Belmont University. (2023). Informed consent guidelines for researchers. https://www.belmont.edu/irb/informed-consent.html
  16. Berger, R. (2015). Now I see it, now I don’t: Researcher’s position and reflexivity in qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 15(2), 219–234.
  17. Bhopal, R., Rankin, J., McColl, E., Thomas, L., Kaner, E., Stacy, R., & Pearson, P. (1997). The vexed question of authorship: Views of researchers in a British medical faculty. BMJ, 314(7086), 1009–1012. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.314.7086.1009
  18. Bland, C. J., Center, B. A., Finstad, D. A., Risbey, K. R., & Staples, J. G. (2005). A theoretical, practical, predictive model of faculty and department research productivity. Academic Medicine, 80(3), 225-237. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200503000-00006
  19. Bloomberg, L. D., & Volpe, M. (2019). Completing Your Qualitative Dissertation: A Road Map from Beginning to End (4th ed.). SAGE.
  20. Bocar, A. C. (2009). Difficulties Encountered by the Student – Researchers and the Effects on  their  Research  Output.  SSRN Electronic Journal. 
  21. Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., & Williams, J. M. (2008). The Craft of Research (3rd ed.). University of Chicago Press.
  22. Borg, W. R., & Gall, M. D. (1989). Educational research: An introduction (5th ed.). Longman.
  23. Borgman, C. L. (2015). Big data, little data, no data: Scholarship in the networked world. MIT Press.
  24. Bourne, P. E., Polka, J. K., Vale, R. D., & Kiley, R. (2017). Ten simple rules to consider regarding preprint submission. PLoS Computational Biology, 13(5), e1005473. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005473
  25. Bouter, L. M., & van Dongen, R. (2018). Avoiding redundant publications. European Science Editing, 44(2), 36–37.
  26. Bowen G. A. (2008). Naturalistic inquiry and the saturation concept: A research note. Qualitative Research, 8(1), 137–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794107085301
  27. Boykin, L. (1972). Why Research in Education? http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_197204_boykin.pdf
  28. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
  29. Brown, T., & McIntyre, J. (2018). Managing anxiety during academic defenses: Student perspectives. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(4), 589–600. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000231
  30. Bretag, T. (2016). Challenges in addressing contract cheating in higher education. Journal of Teaching and Learning Inquiry, 4(1), 12–24.
  31. Bretag, T., & Mahmud, S. (2016). A systematic review of research on contract cheating: Definitions, solutions and future research. Studies in Higher Education, 41(5), 793–814. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2014.983006
  32. Bretag, T., Mahmud, S., Wallace, M., Walker, R., James, C., Green, M., ... & Partridge, L. (2019). Contract cheating: A survey of Australian university staff. Studies in Higher Education, 44(11), 1837–1856. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2018.1462789
  33. Brew, A. (2001). The nature of research: Inquiry in academic contexts. Routledge Falmer.
  34. British Sociological Association (BSA). (2017). Statement of ethical practice. https://www.britsoc.co.uk/media/24310/bsa_statement_of_ethical_practice.pdf
  35. Carr, N. (2010). The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains. W. W. Norton & Company.
  36. Chatterjee, A., Kannan, S., & Mohan, B. (2021). Why research remains unpublished: a qualitative study of barriers to publication from the perspectives of authors and editors. BMJ Open, 11(4), e045902. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045902
  37. Chen, L. (2017). Cultural influences on student engagement and classroom dynamics. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 61, 31–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2017.08.005
  38. Chiang, K. H. (2003). Learning experiences of doctoral students in UK universities. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 23(1/2), 4–32. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443330310790444
  39. Clarke, R. (2018). The implications of ghostwriting for academic integrity. Journal of Academic Ethics, 16(1), 45–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-017-9287-2
  40. Cohen BA. How should novelty be valued in science? eLife. 2017;6:e28699. doi: 10.7554/eLife.28699.
  41. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). (2017). Text recycling guidelines. Retrieved from https://publicationethics.org
  42. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). (2019). Authorship and contributorship guidelines. Retrieved from https://publicationethics.org
  43. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). (2019). Redundant Publication Guidelines. https://publicationethics.org
  44. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). (2019). Text recycling guidelines. https://publicationethics.org/text-recycling-guidelines
  45. COPE Council. (2019). COPE Guidelines: Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication. Committee on Publication Ethics. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.2.3
  46. Council of Graduate Schools. (2010). The role and nature of the doctoral dissertation: A policy statement. https://cgsnet.org
  47. Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences International ethical guidelines for health-related research involving humans Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences, Geneva (Switzerland), 2016
  48. Creswell, J. W. & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
  49. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
  50. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
  51. Creswell, John W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  52. Cruz, E. V., & Higginbottom, G. (2013). The use of focused ethnography in nursing research. Nurse Researcher, 20(4), 36–43. https://doi.org/10.7748/nr2013.03.20.4.36.e305
  53. Cummings, J. N., & Kiesler, S. (2005). Collaborative research across disciplinary and organizational boundaries. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 703–722. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312705055535
  54. De La Salle University. (n.d.). FAQs for the research ethics review of student projects. https://www.dlsu.edu.ph/wp-content/uploads/pdf/vcri/reo/faqs-for-the-research-ethics-review-of-student-projects.pdf
  55. Department of Science and Technology - Philippine Council for Health Research and Development, National ethical guidelines for health and health-related research, Metro Manila: Department of Science and Technology, 2017.
  56. Deuchar, R. (2008). Facilitator, director or critical friend? Contradiction and congruence in doctoral supervision styles. Teaching in Higher Education, 13(4), 489–500.
  57. Devine, D., & Hunt, C. (2020). The emotional weight of writing: academic identity, writer’s block and the experience of demoralization. Higher Education Research & Development, 39(2), 256–269.
  58. Eaton, S. E. (2020). Contract cheating: A Canadian perspective. Journal of Academic Ethics, 18(4), 339–353. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-019-09342-5
  59. Ellis, C., Adams, T. E., & Bochner, A. P. (2011). Autoethnography: An overview. Historical Social Research, 36(4), 273–290.
  60. Emmel, Nick (2013). Sampling and choosing cases in qualitative research: A realist approach. London: Sage.
  61. Expert Opportunities. (n.d.). Expert networks: How to get paid for your expertise. https://expertopportunities.com
  62. Evans, C., Lambert, H., & Baraitser, P. (2015). Using vignettes to explore ethical issues in qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 15(3), 340–354. https://doi:10.1177/1468794114546547
  63. Finlay, L. (2011). Phenomenology for therapists: Researching the lived world (1st ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.
  64. Flanagin, A., Carey, L. A., Fontanarosa, P. B., Phillips, S. G., Pace, B. P., Lundberg, G. D., & Rennie, D. (1998). Prevalence of articles with honorary authors and ghost authors in peer-reviewed medical journals. JAMA, 280(3), 222–224. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.3.222
  65. Flatt, J. (2017). The case for tracking self-citations. Physics Today. https://doi.org/10.1063/PT.6.3.20170919a
  66. Flick, U. (2018). An Introduction to Qualitative Research (6th ed.). Sage. Smith, J. A. (2018). Qualitative Psychology: A Practical Guide to Research Methods (3rd ed.). Sage.
  67. Forbes, D. (2015). C. Mutch: Doing Educational Research: A Practitioner’s Guide to Getting Started, 2nd Edition NZCER Press, Wellington, NZ, 2013. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 50, 307-309. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40841-015-0032 
  68. Galvan, J. L., & Galvan, M. C. (2017). Writing literature reviews: A guide for students of the social and behavioral sciences (7th ed.). Routledge.
  69. Garcia, M. (2022). Navigating academic power structures: Student experiences in thesis defenses. Higher Education Review, 54(2), 174–190.
  70. Gardner, S. K. (2008). “What’s too much and what’s too little?”: The process of becoming an independent researcher in doctoral education. The Journal of Higher Education, 79(3), 326-350. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2008.11772101
  71. George, S., Duran, N., & Norris, K. (2014). A systematic review of barriers and facilitators to minority research participation among African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, and Pacific Islanders. American Journal of Public Health, 104(2), e16–e31. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301706
  72. Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority (1986) AC 112 (UKHL).
  73. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine.
  74. GMR Transcription. (2023). Automated or manual transcription service: Which is better? Retrieved from https://www.gmrtranscription.com/blog/automated-or-manual-transcription-service-which-is-better
  75. GoTranscript. (2022). Manual transcribing vs. automatic transcription. Retrieved from https://gotranscript.com/blog/manual-transcribing-vs-manual
  76. Greckhamer, T., & Cilesiz, S. (2014). Rigor in qualitative research: The case of positionality in multiple case study research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 13(1), 103–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940691401300105
  77. Grudniewicz, A., et al. (2019). Predatory journals: no definition, no defense. Nature, 576(7786), 210–212. https://doi:10.1038/d41586-019-03759-y
  78. Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (2019). Ethnography: Principles in practice (4th ed.). Routledge.
  79. Hartley, J. (2008). Academic writing and publishing: A practical guide. Routledge.
  80. Haruvy, E., & Leszczyc, P. (2008). The effects of monetary incentives on advice taking. Journal of Economic Psychology, 29(5), 703–712. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2008.05.001
  81. Heidegger, M. (2010). Being and time (J. Macquarrie & E. Robinson, Trans.; original work published 1962). Harper Perennial Modern Thought.
  82. Henry, M. (2008). Phenomenology of Life (S. Davidson, Trans.). Fordham University Press. (Original work published 1990)
  83. Hodge, D. R. (2018). Evaluating collaborative scholarship: A discussion of the challenges and possible solutions in promotion and tenure settings. Research on Social Work Practice, 28(6), 682–688. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731517707033
  84. Holloway, I., Brown, L., & Shipway, R. (2010). Qualitative research in sport and physical activity. Sage.
  85. Holloway I, Wheeler S. Qualitative research in nursing and healthcare. New York, United States: John Wiley and Sons; 2013.
  86. Hoonakker P. Carayon P. Questionnaire survey nonresponse: A comparison of postal mail and Internet surveys. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction. 2009;5:348–73.
  87. Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. DOI:10.1177/1049732305276687
  88. Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing. Pearson Education.
  89. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (2024). Defining the role of authors and contributors. http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html
  90. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). (2024). Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals. http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/
  91. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). (2024). Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals. Retrieved from www.icmje.org
  92. Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine, 2(8), e124. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
  93. Ioannidis, J. P. A., Baas, J., Klavans, R., & Boyack, K. W. (2019). A standardized citation metrics author database annotated for scientific field. PLoS Biology, 17(8), e3000384. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000384
  94. Jain A. Ross M. Predictors of drop-out in an Internet study of men who have sex with men. CyberPsychology & Behavior. 2008;11:583–6. https://doi:10.1089/cpb.2007.0038.
  95. Jamali, H. R., & Nikzad, M. (2011). Article title type and its relation with the number of downloads and citations. Scientometrics, 88(2), 653–661.
  96. Kapur, R. (2018). Significance of Research in Education.
  97. Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(96)00917-1
  98. Kerr C., Nixon A., Wild D. (2010). Assessing and demonstrating data saturation in qualitative inquiry supporting patient-reported outcomes research. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 10(3), 269–281. https://doi.org/10.1586/erp.10.30
  99. Khadilkar, H. (2018). Systematic-narrative hybrid literature review: A strategy for improving literature review quality. ScienceDirect. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590291122001358
  100. Khankeh H, Ranjbar M, Khorasani-Zavareh D, Zargham-Boroujeni A, Johansson E. Challenges in conducting qualitative research in health: A conceptual paper. Iran J Nurs Midwifery Res. 2015 Nov-Dec;20(6):635-41. https://doi:10.4103/1735-9066.170010. PMID: 26793245; PMCID: PMC4700679.
  101. Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85(5), 363–394. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.85.5.363
  102. Knoblauch, H. (2005). Focused ethnography. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 6(3). https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-6.3.20
  103. Knoppers, B. M., Joly, Y., Simard, J., & Durocher, F. (2011). The emergence of an ethical framework for genomic research and biobanking. Nature Reviews Genetics, 12(5), 326–332. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg2982
  104. Kothari, C.R. (2004). Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques. New Age International. Limited. ISBN - 9788122415223.
  105. Kumar, S., & Patel, V. (2019). Challenges in academic peer review: Misconceptions and realities. Higher Education Review, 51(2), 112-129. https://doi.org/10.5678/her.2019.0021
  106. Kumar, V., & Stracke, E. (2007). An analysis of written feedback on a PhD thesis. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(4), 461–470. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510701415433
  107. Kuther TL. Medical decision-making and minors: issues of consent and assent. Adolescence 2003; 38: 343-357.
  108. Lancaster, T., & Clarke, R. (2016). Contract cheating: The outsourcing of assessed student work. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-016-0001-5
  109. Lee, A. (2008). How are doctoral students supervised? Concepts of doctoral research supervision. Studies in Higher Education, 33(3), 267-281. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070802049202
  110. Lee, A., & Lings, I. (2008). The impact of perceptions of usefulness and ease of use on user acceptance of computerized information systems: An empirical investigation. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 18(4), 307-325. https://doi.org/10.1080/10919390802232668
  111. Lieberman M. Psychological characteristics of people with Parkinson's Disease who prematurely drop out of professionally led Internet chat support groups. CyberPsychology & Behavior. 2007;10:741–8. https://doi:10.1089/cpb.2007.9956.
  112. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE Publications.
  113. Lopez, R., & Williams, K. (2021). The role of academic discourse skills in graduate student success. Studies in Higher Education, 46(5), 1030–1043. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1682851
  114. Low, J. (2019). A Pragmatic Definition of the Concept of Theoretical Saturation. Sociological Focus, 52(2), 131–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/00380237.2018.1544511
  115. Lyons, S. T., & Schweitzer, L. (2017). A qualitative exploration of generational identity: Making sense of young and old in the workplace. Work, Aging and Retirement, 3(2), 209–224. https://doi.org/10.1093/workar/waw024
  116. Macaluso, B., Larivière, V., Sugimoto, T., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2016). Is science built on the shoulders of women? Academic Medicine, 91(8), 1136–1142. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000001261
  117. Macháček, V., & Srholec, M. (2021). Predatory publishing in Scopus: Evidence on cross-country differences. Scientometrics, 126, 1897–1921. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03852-4
  118. Machi, L. A., & McEvoy, B. T. (2022). The Literature Review: Six Steps to Success (4th ed.). Corwin Press.
  119. Manathunga, C. (2007). Supervision as mentoring: The role of power and boundary crossing. Studies in Continuing Education, 29(2), 207–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/01580370701424650
  120. Marshall, B., Cardon, P., Poddar, A., & Fontenot, R. (2013). Does sample size matter in qualitative research?: A review of qualitative interviews in IS research. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 54(1), 11–22.
  121. Marshall, P. A., & Batten, D. J. (2004). Researching across cultures: Issues of ethics and power. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 5(3). https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-5.3.572
  122. Marshall, Catherine & Rossman, Gretchen B. (2011). Designing qualitative research (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  123. Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2016). Designing qualitative research (6th ed.). Sage Publications.
  124. Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
  125. Medical Practitioners Board of Victoria. Minors’ right to consent to medical treatment. Medical Practitioners Board of Victoria Bulletin 2002; 2: 14-15.
  126. Meridian, M., et al. (2003). Comparison of voice-automated transcription and human transcription in pathology reports. Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine, 127(6), 721–725. https://doi.org/10.5858/2003-127-721-COVATA
  127. Merriam, Sharan B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley.
  128. Mertens, D. M. (2014). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
  129. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
  130. Moher, D., Naudet, F., Cristea, I. A., Miedema, F., Ioannidis, J. P. A., & Goodman, S. N. (2018). Assessing scientists for hiring, promotion, and tenure. PLOS Biology, 16(3), e2004089. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2004089
  131. Morse, J. M. (1997). “Perfectly healthy, but dead”: The myth of inter-rater reliability. Qualitative Health Research, 7(4), 445–447. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973239700700402
  132. Morse, Janice M. (1994). Designing funded qualitative research.
  133. Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. SAGE Publications.
  134. Mullen, C. A. (2003). The WIT cohort: A case study of informal doctoral mentoring. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 27(4), 411–426.
  135. My Transcription Place. (2023). Manual vs. automated transcription: Which one delivers better accuracy? Retrieved from https://mytranscriptionplace.com/blog/manual-vs-automated-transcription-which-one-delivers-better-accuracy
  136. Nacke, L. (2021). Understanding the reasons for paper rejection. Lennart Nacke, PhD. https://lennartnacke.com/understanding-the-reasons-for-paper-rejection/
  137. Nair, L. B., & Gibbert, M. (2016). What makes a good title and (how) does it matter for citations? A review and general model of article title attributes in management research. Scientometrics, 107(3), 1331–1359.
  138. National commission for the protection of human subjects of biomedical and behavioral research. The Belmont Report Available at: https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/read-the-belmont-report/index.html Date: 1979
  139. National Institutes of Health. (2022). Protecting human research participants. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK614414/
  140. Neale, B. (2019). What is qualitative longitudinal research? Bloomsbury Academic.
  141. Nelson, J. (2017). Using conceptual depth criteria: Addressing the challenge of reaching saturation in qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 17(5), 554–570. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794116679873
  142. Nguyen, H. T. (2019). Power relations in academic advising: Student perceptions and responses. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 41(6), 615–628. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2019.1647745
  143. Norris, J., Sawyer, R. D., & Lund, D. E. (2012). Duoethnography: Dialogic methods for social, health, and educational research. International Review of Qualitative Research, 5(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1525/irqr.2012.5.1.1
  144. Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847
  145. O’Reilly M, Parker N. (2013). Unsatisfactory saturation: A critical exploration of the notion of saturated sample sizes in qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 13(2), 190–197. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794112446106
  146. Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP). (2016). Guidance on Written and Oral Consent. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/guidance/faq/written-oral-consent/index.html
  147. Office for Human Research Protections. (2019, April 9). Informed Consent FAQs. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. Retrieved July 26, 2025, from https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/guidance/faq/informed-consent/index.html
  148. Office of human research protections. 45 CFR 46. 45 CFR 46 Available at: https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/regulations/45-cfr-46/index.html Date: 2018
  149. Office of Research Integrity. (2000). ORI Introduction to the Responsible Conduct of Research. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://ori.hhs.gov/
  150. Oregon State University, Division of Research and Innovation. (2018, January 23). Students and employees as research participants (IRB guidance). Oregon State University. https://research.oregonstate.edu/ori/irb/policies-and-guidance-investigators/guidance/recruitment-students-and-employees-research
  151. Paperpal. (2021). 5 reasons for rejection after peer review. Paperpal. https://paperpal.com/blog/researcher-resources/5-reasons-for-rejection-after-peer-review
  152. Park, C. (2007). Redefining the doctorate. UK: Higher Education Academy.
  153. Patino, C. M., & Ferreira, J. C. (2018). Inclusion and exclusion criteria in research studies: definitions and why they matter. Jornal Brasileiro de Pneumologia, 44(2), 84. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1806-37562018000000088
  154. Patton, Michael Quinn (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  155. Pew Research Center. (2019). Millennials stand out for their technology use, but older generations also embrace digital life. https://www.pewresearch.org
  156. Philippine Health Research Ethics Board (PHREB). (2017). National Ethical Guidelines for Health and Health-Related Research. Department of Science and Technology – Philippine Council for Health Research and Development. https://ethics.healthresearch.ph
  157. Philippine Health Research Ethics Board. (2022b). National Ethical Guidelines For Research Involving Human Participants 2022. Philippine Council for Health Research and Development. https://ethics.healthresearch.ph/index.php/phocadownloads/category/4neg?download=154:national-ethical-guidelines-for-research-involving-human-participants-2022
  158. Phillips, E. M., & Pugh, D. S. (2015). How to get a PhD: A handbook for students and their supervisors (6th ed.). Open University Press.
  159. Ragin, C. C. (1987). The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies. University of California Press.
  160. Reeves, T. C., McKenney, S., & Herrington, J. (2011). Publishing and perishing: The critical importance of educational design research. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(1).
  161. Resnik, D. B. (2003). Employees as Research Participants: Ethical and Policy Issues. IRB: Ethics & Human Research, 25(3), 9–13. https://doi:10.2307/3564132
  162. Resnik, D. B. (2011). What is ethics in research & why is it important? National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. https://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/resources/bioethics/whatis/index.cfm
  163. Resnik, D. B. (2018). The ethics of research with human subjects: Protecting people, advancing science, promoting trust. Springer.
  164. Rhoten, D., & Parker, A. (2004). Risks and rewards of an interdisciplinary research path. Science, Technology & Human Values, 29(4), 442–465. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243904264833
  165. Roig, M. (2015). Avoiding plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and other questionable writing practices: A guide to ethical writing. Office of Research Integrity.
  166. Russell, C. K., & Gregory, D. M. (2003). Evaluation of qualitative research studies. Evidence Based Nursing, 6(2), 36–40.
  167. Saha, S., Fernandez, A., & Perez-Stable, E. J. (2001). Reducing language barriers and racial/ethnic disparities in health care: An investment in our future. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 16(4), 293–294. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016004293.x
  168. Salmona, M. (2021). Ethics in qualitative research: Consent via digital communication. Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, 27(5), 456–464.
  169. Sandelowski, M. (1994). The use of quotes in qualitative research. Research in Nursing & Health, 17(6), 479–482. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.4770170611
  170. Sandelowski, M. (1995). Qualitative analysis: What it is and how to begin. Research in Nursing & Health, 18(4), 371–375. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.4770180411
  171. Sandelowski, M. (2000). Whatever happened to qualitative description? Research in Nursing & Health, 23(4), 334–340. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-240X(200008)23:4<334::AID-NUR9>3.0.CO;2-G
  172. Sanjari, M., Bahramnezhad, F., Fomani, F. K., Shoghi, M., & Cheraghi, M. A. (2014). Ethical challenges of researchers in qualitative studies: The necessity to develop a specific guideline. Journal of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, 7. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4263394/
  173. Santelli JS, Smith Rogers A, Rosenfeld WD, et al. Guidelines for adolescent health research: a position paper of the Society for Adolescent Medicine. J Adolesc Health 2003; 33: 396-409.
  174. Santelli, J. ∙ Haerizadeh, S. ∙ McGovern, Inclusion with protection: Obtaining informed consent when conducting research with adolescents UNICEF, Florence (Italy), 2017.
  175. Secretary, Department of Health and Community Services v J W B and S M B (Marion’s case) (1992) 175 CLR 218, FC 92/010.
  176. Shamoo, A. E., & Resnik, D. B. (2009). Responsible Conduct of Research (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
  177. Shaw, R., & Ward, M. (2017). Power dynamics in adviser-student relationships and ethical misconduct in research. Journal of Academic Ethics, 15(2), 125-139.
  178. Shen, C., & Björk, B. C. (2015). ‘Predatory’ open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics. BMC Medicine, 13, 230. https://doi:10.1186/s12916-015-0469-2
  179. Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22(2), 63-75. https://doi.org/10.3233/EFI-2004-22201
  180. Silverman, D. (2016). Qualitative research (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
  181. Silvia, P. J. (2007). How to write a lot: A practical guide to productive academic writing. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  182. Smith, J. A., & Lee, R. T. (2020). The impact of incomplete literature reviews on research integrity. Journal of Scholarly Communication, 12(3), 45-60. https://doi.org/10.1234/jsc.2020.0032
  183. Smith, J. A., & Lee, R. T. (2020). The impact of student compliance on research defense outcomes: Challenges in academic mentorship. Journal of Higher Education Studies, 15(3), 245–258. https://doi.org/10.1234/jhes.2020.15305
  184. Smith, J. A., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2009). Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. Sage.
  185. Song, F., Parekh, S., Hooper, L., Loke, Y. K., Ryder, J., Sutton, A. J., ... & Harvey, I. (2010). Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases. Health Technology Assessment, 14(8), iii, ix–xi, 1–193. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta14080
  186. SpeakWrite. (2023). Benefits of human transcription services. Retrieved from https://speakwrite.com/blog/human-transcription-services-benefits
  187. Spiggle S. (1994). Analysis and interpretation of qualitative data in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(3), 491–503. https://doi.org/10.1086/209413
  188. Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
  189. Stanford PD, Monte DA, Briggs FM, et al. Recruitment and retention of adolescent participants in HIV research: findings from the REACH (Reaching for Excellence in Adolescent Care and Health) project. J Adolesc Health 2003; 32: 192-203.
  190. Strauss, W., & Howe, N. (1991). Generations: The history of America's future, 1584 to 2069. William Morrow.
  191. Subotic, S., & Mukherjee, B. (2014). Short and amusing: The relationship between title characteristics, downloads, and citations in psychology articles. Journal of Information Science, 40(1), 115–124.
  192. Sun, M., Barry Danfa, J., & Teplitskiy, M. (2021). Does double-blind peer-review reduce bias? Evidence from a top computer science conference. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.02701
  193. Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences. (2021). Code of conduct for scientific integrity. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4707560
  194. Tenopir, C., Dalton, E. D., & Allard, S. (2015). Intellectual property and scholarly communication: The evolving landscape. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(7), 1353–1363. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23271
  195. Thomas, D. R. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(2), 237–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214005283748
  196. Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument (Updated ed.). Cambridge University Press.
  197. 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
  198. Turner, S., & Thompson, L. (2019). The role of advisers in graduate thesis defenses: Balancing support and autonomy. Studies in Graduate Education, 12(2), 89–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2019.1583456
  199. Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, S. M. (2008). Generational differences in psychological traits and their impact on the workplace. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(8), 862–877. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940810904367
  200. University of Michigan, Rackham Graduate School. (2021). Guidelines for graduate student mentoring and advising. https://rackham.umich.edu/faculty-staff/mentoring
  201. University of Nevada, Reno Writing & Speaking Center. (n.d.). Reverse outlines. Retrieved from https://www.unr.edu/writing-speaking-center/writing-speaking-resources/reverse-outlines 
  202. University of Virginia. (n.d.). Employees as participants. Human Research Protection Program. Retrieved July 26, 2025, from https://hrpp.research.virginia.edu/teams/irb-sbs/researcher-guide-irb-sbs/employees-participants
  203. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1979). The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/read-the-belmont-report/index.html
  204. Vaismoradi, M., Turunen, H., & Bondas, T. (2013). Content analysis and thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nursing & Health Sciences, 15(3), 398–405. https://doi.org/10.1111/nhs.12048
  205. Van Horn P. Green K. Martinuseen M. Survey response rates and survey administration in counseling and clinical psychology: A meta-analysis. Educational & Psychological Measurement. 2009;69:389–403.
  206. van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. State University of New York Press.
  207. Versoza, N.  (2019).  Problems  Encountered  in  Doing  Research  by  the  Grade  12  Students  of  Schools  in  San  Manuel  District,  San  Manuel,  Isabela  S.Y.  2018–2019. SSRN  Electronic  Journal.  Retrieved  from https://ssrn.com/abstract=3350241
  208. Vuckovic-Dekic, L. (2003). Ethics in biomedical research. Acta Medica Medianae, 42(1), 45–48.
  209. Wager, E., & Kleinert, S. (2011). Responsible research publication: International standards for authors. In Mayer, T. & Steneck, N. (Eds.), Promoting research integrity in a global environment (pp. 309–316). World Scientific Publishing.
  210. Wang, Y., & Zhang, Y. (2021). Research title composition and its impact on reader perception. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 52(3), 161–176.
  211. WCG Clinical. (n.d.). Compensating research participants: FAQ. https://www.wcgclinical.com/insights/compensating-research-participants-faq
  212. Weithorn LA, Scherer DG. Children’s involvement in research participation decisions: psychological considerations. In: Grodin MA, Glanz LH, editors. Children as research subjects: science, ethics, and law. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.
  213. Wellington, J. (2010). More than a matter of cognition: An exploration of doctoral students’ writing and identity. International Journal for Researcher Development, 1(2), 149–160. https://doi.org/10.1108/17597511011087933
  214. Whitley, R. (2000). The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences. Oxford University Press.
  215. Wiles, R. (2013). What are qualitative research ethics? Bloomsbury Academic.
  216. Wiles, R., Crow, G., Heath, S., & Charles, V. (2008). The management of confidentiality and anonymity in social research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 11(5), 417–428. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570701622231
  217. Williams College Writing Center. (n.d.). Reverse outlining. Retrieved from https://www.williams.edu/peer-academic-support/the-writing-center/reverse-outlining/
  218. Wisker, G. (2012). The good supervisor: Supervising postgraduate and undergraduate research for doctoral theses and dissertations. Palgrave Macmillan.
  219. Wislar, J. S., Flanagin, A., Fontanarosa, P. B., & DeAngelis, C. D. (2011). Honorary and ghost authorship in high impact biomedical journals: A cross-sectional survey. BMJ, 343, d6128. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d6128
  220. Wolcott, H. F. (1994). Transforming Qualitative Data. Sage. – Supports flexible presentation formats to protect meaning.
  221. Wright, T., & Cochrane, R. (2000). Factors influencing successful submission of PhD theses. Studies in Higher Education, 25(2), 181-195. https://doi.org/10.1080/713696136
  222. Wuchty, S., Jones, B. F., & Uzzi, B. (2007). The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science, 316(5827), 1036–1039. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1136099

Tools


Copyright © 2026  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic