There are many research articles, but only some of them are determined as “high-quality papers.” What determines such articles, if not the words in them? It is impossible to state whether the article is qualitative or not by just analyzing its words because of the significant number of contrasting points. Consequently, the central importance of successful articles is that they are provided with high-quality formatting to transmit genuine authors’ ideas.
To begin with, Adler’s and Seligman’s (2016) article shows the importance of well-being in providing a qualitative public policy, and it may be seen by reading the title of the article — “Using wellbeing for public policy: Theory, measurement, and recommendations” (1). After that, there are many references to the other works throughout the article so that the scientists demonstrate their deep acknowledge of the subject and provide the reader with many opinions on specific problems. For instance, in the third point, “What is wellbeing?” the authors illustrate Robinson’s and Irwin’s point of view firstly on some specific terms (Adler et al., 4).
Turning to the other side of the article’s analysis, many scientists neglect to divide the information into concise and one-point parts. The possible explanation of such an issue is that the authors write in the “mind-flow” style. On the other hand, after the finalization of the writing process, the edition is the essential part of publishing the article: mistake correction and readability analysis, for example. However, while the authors do not take part in the edition, the scope and final vision of the article might be lost. Nevertheless, the analyzed article about public policy is an excellent instance of correctly formatting the scientific work. To illustrate, many italicized sub-points disclose the specific term or issue from the other side. When describing the 5th point, “Using the wellbeing to assess public policy,” (12), Fioretos et al. (2016) also present the point of possible externalities, social capital and trust problems, unemployment issues, tax structures, and moral debates. This helps to openly examine the specific obstacle from many concise and strict to one-point parts of the explanation. Finally, the conciseness of the article title, the pluralistic approach to the problem analysis, and the correct formatting play a significant role in providing a high-quality paper on public policy subjects.
On the other hand, while analyzing political science articles, it is crucial to write widely. For example, Fioretos et al.’s article (1) there are 44 pages overall, and they exhaustively describe the main issue — “Historical institutionalism in political science.” What is more, there are four main parts, which are not divided by numerated sub-points and other possible text-formatting tools. Nevertheless, political science article has a different purpose than public policy articles: they examine the problem holistically by digging into one concrete problem and examining its parts. As a result, there is no need to divide the text into many small parts because it will only distract the reader from analyzing it. Secondly, the political science articles contain different information from the specific authors to examine their different points of view. Consequently, there are letters near the year of publication in some formatting styles: “In Mahoney and Thelen (2010a).” Finally, the authors must emphasize some specific points to deliver the exact author’s intention to the reader. For instance, the authors provide focus on the impact of early events by italicizing the main words. This distinguishes them from the whole sentence: “In this approach to path dependence, the causal impact of early events is significantly stronger than that of subsequent events” (15).
Overall, the primary quality standards of writing on public policy and political science related to the proper formatting and presenting the author’s ideas. This is because there are many points of view, and it is impossible to analyze the author’s words to determine the article’s quality. By analyzing Luke 14:28-30, it is important to provide a high-quality plan for the writing and strict to concise rules to do high-quality research writing that honors Christ (Zondervan, 2020).
Adler, A. & Seligman, M. E. P. (2016). Using wellbeing for public policy: Theory, measurement, and recommendations. International Journal of Wellbeing, 6(1), 1-35.
Fioretos, O., Falleti, T. G., & Sheingate, A. (2016). Historical Institutionalism in political science. Oxford Handbooks Online, 1(1), 1–44.
Zondervan. (2020). NIV Study Bible, fully revised edition, personal size, hardcover, red letter, comfort print ( K. L. Barker, M. L. Strauss, J. K. Brown, C. L. Blomberg, M. Williams, Eds.). Zondervan.