Writing Quality Manuscripts for the Clothing and Textiles Research Journal

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to discuss the components of a quality Clothing and Textiles Research Journal (CTRJ) manuscript from the perspectives of different categories of scholarship including qualitative or quantitative data analyses. The expectations for the content and quality of the typical manuscript sections are discussed. These sections commonly include the introduction, review of literature, method, results, and conclusion, although terminology may vary according to varied disciplinary norms. The conceptual or theoretical framework segment is also discussed. Overall, conceptual terms should be used consistently, key concepts/variables should be defined, the manuscript should be clearly and logically organized, and the writing should be clear, careful, and logical. Ethics and intellectual property rights are discussed as is the CTRJ review process.

Keywords

quality manuscript review process ethics intellectual property rights

The goal of the Clothing and Textiles Research Journal (CTRJ, 2017) is “to strengthen the research base in clothing and textiles, facilitate scholarly interchange, demonstrate the interdisciplinary nature of the field, and inspire further research.”¹ The dominant CTRJ audience is scholars in all the multiple facets of clothing and textiles. Manuscript decisions made by the reviewers and editors are influenced by the journal’s goals and audience. The purpose of this article is to discuss the components of a quality CTRJ manuscript and thus review the expectations for manuscripts sent to CTRJ. Also incorporated into this article is the guidance shared in special sessions about publishing in CTRJ that have been offered in recent annual International Textile and Apparel Association meetings. The reader is reminded that an important and easy way to understand the content and quality expectations for CTRJ is to read and examine published CTRJ articles.

A primary component for a manuscript in CTRJ is that the topic be useful and valuable for readers. If the topic of the research does not fit the expectations for quality research, then reviewers will suggest rejection of the manuscript for publication in CTRJ. Perneger and Hudelson (2004) suggest that the critical components of a good research question are relevancy to the field, originality or novelty, and precision and particularity.² Often the researcher does not need to have studied some entirely new subject; an expansion or advancement of “previous knowledge or refut[ation of] existing knowledge” is also important (Perneger & Hudelson, 2004, para. 4). Additionally, practitioners in the field, such as designers, may need “empirical knowledge that is not currently available from existing models of professional design practice” (Bye, 2010, p. 205); this quote refers to textile and apparel designers, but the concept may apply to other areas of the field.

While clearly the results of the research are important, equally essential components are the reasons/justification for the research, a discussion of the research process or method, and a discussion of the results. When the manuscript is organized, the basic sections typically are (a) introduction, (b) review of the literature, (c) method, (d) results, and (e) conclusion. Thus, this article is divided into sections to address these components, while recognizing that the specific terminology to represent them can differ according to particular area expectations. Sections on identifying a conceptual or theoretical framework, offering overall manuscript guidance, and discussing the review process are also included.

The Introduction

The introduction should engage the reader, provide a justification for the study, and contain a statement profiling the purpose of the work being discussed. The justification includes an overview of recent literature or design works (written design pieces and actual design pieces) and a description of how the current work being reported builds on, fills in a research gap, or adds to scholarly knowledge and the scholarly literature. Highlighting recent developments or trends in social, cultural, educational, or economic environments that make the topic particularly relevant may also be a component of the introduction (justification). Statements in the introduction should be supported with text citations. In addition to the purpose of the study, the research questions or research objectives may be placed within the introductory section. The purpose statement, research questions, and/or research objectives need to be clear and specific. “Of all parts of a research project, the purpose statement is the most important. It sets the stage for the entire article” (Creswell, 2013, p. 129). In the introduction or literature review, there should be clear definitions of key study concepts and/or variables, and throughout the manuscript, there should be consistent use of the study concepts/variables. Thus, after finishing the introduction, the reader should be easily led to understand and value what is to come in the rest of the article. Finally, note that in the American Psychological Association (APA) style that is used in CTRJ, there is no introduction heading.

The Review of Literature

In the literature section, the results of studies related to the current study are reported, providing a context for the research being presented. A context for the manuscript study is provided by the review of literature. The review of literature enables a comparison of the current results with other studies. The author should state both what has been discussed in the literature and what has been omitted from or not discussed in the literature (Pratt, 2008). The review is a synthesis of the literature, but the author should also evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the existing literature.

In research that is based in practice and initiated from a practice-based problem, a contextual review, slightly different from a literature review, may be part of the research and research reporting process (Bye, 2010). In a contextual review, written sources are found that provide important background to the research problem. In addition, “other media, interviews, exhibits, and artifacts” (Bye, 2010, p. 214) form additional components of the contextual review. These sources are critiqued as part of the review.

The content and organization of the literature or contextual review need to relate directly to the purpose of the study and/or research questions, research objectives, or hypotheses. This section should support the justification for the study presented in the introduction and elaborate on the contextual background for the study. For historical work, the literature review would contain important scholarly secondary sources related to the study topic. The author’s selectivity is particularly significant when the literature is broad and deep. In this situation, the author may consider creating a table to highlight key sources and points driving the study. On the other hand, when the topic is relatively new or the literature shallow, the author may want to note such in the discussion.

When hypothesis testing is part of the study, support for the hypotheses should be part of the literature review, and explanations for their relationships to the literature review should be unambiguous. Thus, the study’s hypotheses should clearly relate to the literature review and be well written and unambiguous. The most relevant and recent scholarly work, along with important classics, when relevant, need to be included.

Conceptual or Theoretical Framework

A theoretical or conceptual component is included either in the literature review or in a separate section. In some cases, the literature review will contain a discussion of the theory(ies) that was/were most influential on the development of the study. When theory creation (i.e., developing a new theory) is the purpose of the study, there may or may not be a discussion of theory(ies) in the literature. In some types of research (e.g., ethnographic or historic but also other types of research), qualitative data collection may result in one or more mini theories, and in this case, generally there would not be a review of theoretical literature. In design research, the conceptual framework for the design process may be introduced to address stages of the design process, beginning with a problem statement and proceeding through “a conceptual design phase, a prototype development phase and final implementation or solution to the problem” (Parsons & Campbell, 2004, p. 89). If the testing of an existing theory is part of the purpose of the study, then a theoretical discussion should also be part of the results section as related to the findings. The decision as to where and how the theoretical/conceptual framework is introduced should fit the particulars of the study and serve to enhance the audience’s understanding of the study. Once introduced, it should be integrated throughout the manuscript—in the literature review, method, results, and conclusion. Terminology in a conceptual framework may further specify manuscript stages or sections. For instance, clearly delineating design process stages may make it easier for the audience to follow the author’s process when it is not perfectly linear (Parsons & Campbell, 2004).

Method³

The method section is a critical component of the manuscript. The research design (e.g., ethnography, experimental, grounded theory, mixed method, phenomenology, problem- or practice-based design, etc.) and the specific method(s) used are discussed in this section. A discussion of the research design should be included if it is not well established or is new to the readers of the CTRJ.

A detailed discussion of the method(s) is needed. This includes, but is not necessarily limited to, a discussion of why the method chosen is appropriate for the purpose of the study or problem statement, the population and sampling decisions and how they fit the purpose of the study, data collection techniques, reliability and validity of the data collection process, and data analysis. If the sample size is small, a justification should be given to support the small sample. Additionally, rationale for the specific population(s) used for the study should be included. Adequate detail for all aspects of the method, including data analysis, should be provided.

When quantitative data are collected, reviewers and readers have a standard of what should be discussed, including means by which reliability and validity were determined. The type of data collection (e.g., experiment, survey, etc.) should be noted. Data collection process details, such as type of survey, time and place of execution, experimental design used, and response rate, are important. There should be a clear discussion of how the variables were measured (Neuman, 2011). Generally, research methods books or other sources should be cited regarding method details.

When qualitative data are collected, the expectations about method are more varied due to differences among inquiry paradigms. Therefore, it is important to include a detailed discussion of the inquiry paradigm, along with the specific methods and how reliability and validity (credibility, authenticity, transferability, dependability, and confirmability) were determined. In design research, and often other textiles and clothing areas, “research evidence [should be] transparent, accurate, complete, and reflective” (Bye, 2010, p. 207). When “design practice and the resulting designs [are] the source of data [then] a transparent record of the design activity from the designer” is necessary (Bye, 2010, p. 207). In the case of a historical study using primary sources, it may be relevant to point out the limitations or gaps in available sources as a rationale for what sources were used. A discussion as to why a qualitative data approach is appropriate to the research question(s) or objective(s) should be included. Qualitative data collection and analysis often lead to theoretical or conceptual development, but sometimes a conceptual/theoretical framework is used to guide qualitative data collection and analysis. In the latter case, the conceptual/theoretical framework should be clearly discussed. As with quantitative data, a clear and detailed description of the process by which the qualitative data were analyzed is a critical component. In historical research, what the primary sources yielded and how they were used are appropriate to discuss.

In textiles, fiber, and polymer sciences, it is critical that adequate information to replicate the study method is provided. This includes equipment details such as the model and brand; it also includes the materials details such as fiber, fabric type, structure, weight, dye type, and manufacturers. Specifics of the experimental design, including the number of replications conducted for each test, are needed, and for every average/mean reported from multiple measurements, a standard deviation of the data should also be reported. Similarly, in practice-based design research, the steps in a discovery process should be described or presented clearly enough to enable subsequent designers to apply or move forward (Bye, 2010).

The Results

It nearly goes without saying that the results need to connect to the purpose of the study and research questions, research objectives, or hypotheses, as well as the conceptual/theoretical framework. The organization of the results section should relate to the study objectives, research questions, and/or hypotheses. Use tables and figures that will help the reader understand your results. For manuscript submission, each table and figure must be placed on its own page, which contributes to the page limit specification.⁴ Take advantage of the tables or figures that are included by highlighting key points without repeating all the information presented in them.

In reporting results of qualitative data collection, research questions/objectives or the conceptual framework provide an effective organizing principle. An introduction as to how the section will be organized could be helpful to the reader. Themes arising from the research may be discussed, but a coherent narrative or framework is also needed to synthesize the results. It is also important to provide support for reported results, such as using participants’ quotes or visual evidence. When data include participant comments from interviews or focus groups, use of select participant quotes to support reported results is important. If needed, quotations can be presented in shortened versions and agreement or disagreement from others noted. If possible, quotes should come from diverse participants who must be identified only by pseudonyms, initials as pseudonyms, or numbers. If theory creation was part of the purpose of the study (e.g., as in using the grounded theory method), then a theoretical discussion should also be part of the results section as related to the findings.

It is generally easier to separate presentation of the results from their discussion when reporting results of quantitative data collection than qualitative data. The scholarly approach used in the qualitative research design and data collection should guide whether it is more effective to separate or integrate results and discussion. Whatever the approach, consistency in execution is important.

The Conclusion

The conclusion may begin with a short summary, but the bulk of this section is a discussion of the major findings. In approaching the conclusion, it is important to pay careful attention to avoiding broad generalizations. The method(s) used and the sampling process and size determine what, if any, generalizations can be made.

When addressing the major findings, the followings are to be included: the contribution of the study results to the literature; the implications of the results for academicians and others; how the findings will be useful to the profession and audiences such as companies, consumers, and educators or service providers; and what additional research is needed in this area. Guidance to future researchers concerning method components is appropriate.

Issues raised in the introduction and review of literature sections should be addressed in the conclusion. Unexpected findings are included in the discussion as are limitations of the study. Discussion of limitations can be framed from the perspective of suggestions for future research.

A discussion of the theoretical aspects of the study should be included in the conclusion. If hypotheses were developed and tested from an existing theory, then the results of hypothesis testing should be discussed from the perspective of supporting the theory or indicating a need for a revision of the theory. If theory development was part of the purpose of the study, then a discussion of the next theory development steps needs to be included. Likewise, if a conceptual model was presented, prospective revisions to that model may be offered.

General Manuscript Considerations

Writing and Organization

Conceptual terms should be used consistently throughout the manuscript; using synonyms often causes misunderstandings for the reader. The concepts and/or variables that are most important to the work need to be clearly defined (in the introduction, review of literature, or theoretical framework section). Particularly, when there is a theoretical orientation in the research, there should be a theoretical definition followed by an operational definition in the methods section.

The writing in the manuscript needs to be clear, careful, and logical. Human characteristics should not be attributed to inanimate sources (i.e., anthropomorphism; see Section 3.09 in the APA publication manual). “Researchers state” should be used instead of statements such as “the research states.” Similarly, “study/studies,” “paper(s),” “article(s),” “tables,” “figures,” “brands,” and so forth should not be assigned human characteristics and actions.

The manuscript should be clearly organized into sections and within sections; there should be a logical and clear organization within and among the paragraphs of each section. Equally important is correct sentence structure, word use, spelling (American English), grammar, and punctuation (see the APA style manual Chapters 2 and 3). The author should carefully review the manuscript prior to submission for writing and style errors, consistent use of terms, consistent reference style (APA), complete information for each reference, and so forth. Microsoft Word’s spell check and spacing indicators should be noticed and errors corrected where needed.

The title should be clear and concise; the APA recommended length is 12 words. The abstract and key words are also important. The title should reflect the scope and underlying purpose of the research. The abstract (150 words or less) should summarize the manuscript’s contents. Some or all of the key words should be used in the abstract (Section 2.04 in the APA publication manual). Key words help the associate editors find the appropriate reviewers and are important in helping scholars find literature in their specialized areas. If an unusual or new method is used, then the method should be listed as a key word.

Ethics and Intellectual Property Rights

Ethics and the protection of intellectual property rights is also an important criterion in the review of CTRJ manuscripts. “Individuals should only take authorship credit for work they have actually performed or to which they have substantially contributed” (APA, 2010, p. 18). Section 1.13 of the APA publication manual contains a discussion of how authorship is determined.

CTRJ reviewers and editors are also concerned about plagiarism or manuscript authors using ideas and words of another scholar as their own (APA, 2010, p. 15). The following are all examples or types of plagiarism: not citing quotations, not citing borrowed ideas, not using quotation marks when using another author’s exact words, and not putting summaries and paraphrases in your own words. Thus, merely changing a few words in a sentence or rearranging another author’s word order is plagiarism (Hacker & Sommers, 2011; Pedersen, 2014).

A text citation is used for both quotations and paraphrasing (“i.e., summarize a passage or rearrange the order of a sentence and change some of the words”) from a published or unpublished source. The quotation/paraphrased source (e.g., the author of the source) is credited in the text with a citation (APA, 2010, p. 15). Quotation marks are utilized when the exact words of another scholar are used. The citation for a direct quotation also includes the page number of the quote if from a print source and the paragraph number if the quotation is from an online source (see Sections 6.03 through 6.09 in the APA publication manual). Self-plagiarism or the use of an author’s previously published work as if it were new scholarship is considered unethical. A limited use of previously published words may sometimes be permissible, but the core and clear majority of the manuscript should be original (APA, 2010, p. 16). See section 1.10 in the APA publication manual.

The APA style should be used for the entire manuscript (see Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, 6th edition), and the CTRJ submission guidelines for formatting, style, and content of the manuscript should be followed. See http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ctrj, click on “Instructions & Forms” in the upper right, and then click on and read “Manuscript Submission Guidelines.”

The CTRJ Review Process

When a manuscript is received via the Sage Manuscript Central submission process, it is first reviewed by the editor to determine whether the manuscript subject matter is appropriate for the CTRJ audience. If the subject matter is not appropriate to CTRJ, the manuscript is rejected as inappropriate. Additionally, the manuscript is initially reviewed to determine whether the majority of the submission guidelines has been followed. These guidelines have been developed to aid reviewers and editors in the review process and to ensure the consistency of style of articles published in CTRJ. When a manuscript is not ready for review, it is given a “submission rejection” and sent back to the author. The decision that a manuscript is not ready for review is made if a manuscript contains multiple writing errors, has confusing organization, is missing a major section such as the review of literature or the methods section, has incomplete or missing citations, has self-identifying information (in other words, information is provided in the manuscript that allows reviewers to know or possibly guess who are one or more of the authors), and so forth. In the decision letter to the author, the information on the needed changes is provided, and the author is invited to make those changes and then submit the revised manuscript as a new submission.

When a newly submitted manuscript meets the quality expectations discussed in this article and has no or few submission guideline errors, it is sent to the appropriate associate editor (the “track” the submitting author identifies determines which associate editor handles the manuscript). The associate editor identifies appropriate reviewers and sends the manuscript to two reviewers. CTRJ follows the “blind review” process; neither the associate editor nor any of the reviewers know who is the author of the manuscript. If when the reviewers provide their recommendations on the manuscript there is a split decision, the associate editor will send the manuscript to a third reviewer. After reading the reviewers’ recommendations regarding the manuscript, the associate editor will make a recommendation to the editor. By the time the author receives a review decision, the manuscript will have been read and reviewed by a minimum of four and sometimes five individuals. The only “reviewer” who knows who the author is the editor.

When the initial review decision is made, it may range from “accept with edits,” “minor revision,” “major revision,” or “reject.” The accept with edits decision is rare, as with that decision, only copy editing of the manuscript is required of the author. A minor revision decision means the reviewers and editors believe the manuscript is publishable, but small content changes are needed to fill small gaps or to strengthen the manuscript. A major revision decision occurs when there are major concerns with the manuscript. The hope of the reviewers and editors is that these concerns can be addressed by the author. However, often the major revisions are so great that even if the author addresses all the concerns, new problems may appear in the revised manuscript. The least desired review decision is the reject decision. A reject decision occurs when the manuscript is not appropriate for the audience of CTRJ, the study is overly simplistic, the study concerns a subject for which there is already a body of literature, there are multiple problems with the manuscript that the reviewers and editors do not believe can be resolved without developing a new study, or there are fatal flaws that influence the results in a negative manner and are not resolvable.

If the author receives a minor revision or a major revision decision and wishes to revise and resubmit the manuscript, the best course of action is to follow all the suggestions made by the reviewers and editors. If the author addresses all the suggestions but clarity is needed for some of the changes, then a minor revision may be necessary for the manuscript, which will then be sent to the author with a minor revision decision. If the revision results in many new difficulties or changes the original purpose of the manuscript, then a review of the manuscript could result in a reject decision. If the authors do not address all the suggestions either by making those changes or by writing a defense of why the changes have not been made, then most likely the manuscript will be rejected upon its review.

When an author is new to the publication process, seeking out assistance by reading literature on research procedures and on the process of preparing manuscripts (see Appendix) and asking colleagues if they will serve as mentors are recommended. Sharing the decision letter containing the recommendations of the editors and reviewers with a colleague may be helpful.

Footnotes

Appendix

Acknowledgments

I am very appreciative to Pam Ulrich, International Textiles and Apparel Association’s (ITAA) Vice President for Publications and to the members of the ITAA Publication Policy Committee: Sherry Haar, Jung Ha-Brookshire, Jennifer Ogle, and Ajoy Sarkar. Each of these individuals reviewed this article and made many helpful suggestions.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Bye

(2010). A direction for clothing and textile design research. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 28, 205–217.

Clothing and Textiles Research Journal . (2017). Sage journals. Retrieved from https://journals-sagepub-com.web.bisu.edu.cn/home/ctr

Creswell

J. W.

(2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Hacker

Sommers

(2011). A writer’s reference (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s.

Mish

F. C.

(Ed.). (2000). Merriam-Webster’s collegiate dictionary (10th ed.). Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster.

Neuman

W. L.

(2011). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Parsons

J. L.

Campbell

J. R.

(2004). Digital apparel design process: Placing new technology into a framework for the creative design process. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 22, 88–98.

Pedersen

E. L.

(2014). The design and human environment learning and style guide (3rd ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.

10.

Perneger

T. V.

Hudelson

P. M.

(2004). Writing a research article: Advice to beginners. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 16, 191–192. Retrieved from https://academic.oup.com/intqhc/article/16/3/191/1814554/Writing-a-research-article-advice-to-beginners

11.

Pratt

M. G.

(2008). Fitting oval pages into round holes: Tensions in evaluating and publishing qualitative research in top-tier North American journals. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 481–509.