Introduction

Preparing a scholarly manuscript requires more than presenting research activities, reporting findings, or following technical formatting requirements. A high-quality article must communicate a meaningful research problem, engage critically with existing knowledge, employ appropriate and transparent methods, and explain its contribution to elementary education scholarship.

This guide provides practical recommendations for preparing manuscripts for the Journal of Integrated Elementary Education (JIEEd). It complements the journal's Author Guidelines and Article Template by explaining how authors can develop coherent scientific arguments and communicate research evidence effectively.

The guidance applies to both Original Research Articles and Review Articles, with methodological recommendations adapted to each article type.

1. Understanding the Characteristics of a Strong Manuscript

A strong scholarly manuscript should demonstrate five interconnected qualities.

These dimensions must form a coherent research argument rather than appear as unrelated components.

Authors should be able to explain the central contribution of their manuscript in one or two clear sentences.

2. Developing a Researchable Topic and Scientific Problem

2.1 From General Topic to Research Problem

An educational topic is not automatically a scientific research problem.

For example, digital technology in elementary education is a broad topic. A researchable problem identifies a specific uncertainty, relationship, mechanism, challenge, or unresolved question within that topic.

Broad topic: Digital learning in elementary schools.

Focused research problem: Limited understanding of how different forms of digital formative feedback influence elementary students' mathematical reasoning.

Possible research question: How do different forms of digital formative feedback shape mathematical reasoning during elementary mathematics instruction?

The final question must correspond to the research design and the evidence that can realistically be collected.

2.2 Establishing Educational Significance

Authors should explain why the problem matters for educational knowledge and practice.

Significance may concern student learning, developmental processes, equity, pedagogical effectiveness, teacher decision-making, assessment quality, curriculum development, or educational policy.

A research problem should not be justified solely by the availability of a particular school, class, or group of participants.

3. Identifying the Research Gap and Scientific Novelty

The research gap is the unresolved issue that justifies the investigation.

A credible research gap emerges from critical engagement with relevant scholarly literature.

3.1 Types of Research Gaps

A statement such as “This research has never been conducted at School X” does not independently establish significant scientific novelty.

3.2 Writing an Effective Research-Gap Statement

An effective research-gap statement identifies:

Illustrative example:

Previous studies have reported positive associations between digital formative assessment and elementary students' academic achievement. However, the processes through which formative feedback supports mathematical reasoning remain insufficiently explained. Understanding these processes is important for designing feedback practices that develop conceptual understanding rather than only improve test performance. The present study addresses this issue by examining students' reasoning during digitally supported mathematics activities.

Authors must verify that such claims accurately represent the literature they cite.

3.3 Clarifying the Contribution

Research contributions may be theoretical, empirical, methodological, contextual, or practical.

Authors should avoid claiming novelty merely because they use a familiar teaching method with a different group of students.

Meaningful contextual contribution requires an explanation of how the context informs broader educational understanding.

4. Writing an Effective Article Title

The title should communicate the primary research focus accurately and concisely.

A strong title typically identifies the central concepts, educational context, and, when useful, the research design.

4.1 Example of Title Improvement

Too broad: Technology and Learning Outcomes

More focused: Digital Formative Feedback and Mathematical Reasoning in Elementary Education: A Mixed-Methods Study

Review Article example: Digital Formative Assessment in Elementary Education: A Systematic Review of Research Evidence

These examples illustrate title construction; they do not represent verified research findings.

4.2 Common Title Problems

Avoid titles that are unnecessarily long, promotional, vague, or inconsistent with the research design.

In particular, verbs such as improving, enhancing, and influencing should be used carefully when the study cannot adequately establish change or causal relationships.

5. Preparing a Clear and Informative Abstract

The abstract is a concise representation of the completed manuscript.

JIEEd requires an abstract of 150–220 words and three to five keywords.

5.1 Original Research Article

A useful structure is:

The abstract should report the actual research design, participants or data sources, analytical procedures, and main findings.

Writing framework:

This study investigated [specific research problem] in [educational context]. Using [research design], data were collected from [participants or sources] through [instruments or procedures] and analyzed using [analytical approach]. The findings indicated [principal evidence-based result]. These findings suggest [appropriately qualified interpretation] and contribute to [specific scholarly or educational understanding].

Replace every placeholder with actual information. Do not invent findings to complete the framework.

5.2 Review Article

A useful structure is:

Where relevant, include the number of studies reviewed and the methodological approach to evidence synthesis.

Review abstracts should not claim to have used systematic procedures unless those procedures were actually followed and reported.

6. Constructing a Strong Introduction

The Introduction should build a clear scientific argument explaining why the research is necessary.

A useful sequence is:

6.1 Educational Context

Begin with a meaningful educational issue supported by relevant evidence.

Avoid broad statements that do not establish a specific problem.

6.2 Critical Literature Synthesis

Compare research findings, theoretical perspectives, and methodological approaches.

A strong introduction explains patterns, agreements, contradictions, and unresolved questions rather than listing studies one by one.

6.3 Research Gap

Present the gap as a conclusion derived from the literature.

Avoid unsupported statements that no previous research exists.

6.4 Research Objectives

State objectives or questions clearly and ensure that they can be addressed through the proposed methods.

6.5 Scholarly Contribution

Conclude the Introduction by clarifying what the manuscript is expected to contribute and why that contribution matters.

7. Integrating Theory and Previous Research

Theoretical frameworks should help explain the phenomenon being investigated.

Authors should identify the relevant concepts, explain the relationships among them, and demonstrate how they guide research questions, data collection, analysis, or interpretation.

Theoretical discussions should not be detached summaries of well-known scholars.

An effective theoretical foundation connects:

Authors should distinguish between theories that inform the study and findings from earlier empirical research.

Foundational literature may remain important even when older than five years; its inclusion should be scientifically justified.

8. Writing the Methods Section for Original Research

The Methods section must explain what was done, why it was appropriate, how it was implemented, and how research quality was established.

JIEEd recommends the WHAT–WHY–HOW–QUALITY framework.

8.1 Research Design

Identify the precise design and justify its appropriateness.

Merely writing “This research uses a quantitative method” or “This study employs a qualitative approach” is insufficient.

Explain the particular design and its relationship to the research questions.

8.2 Participants and Sampling

Describe the educational context, participants, sampling strategy, selection criteria, and relevant characteristics.

Justify the sample or case selection according to the research design.

8.3 Instruments and Data Sources

Explain the development, adaptation, purpose, and quality of instruments or data sources.

Report validity and reliability evidence where appropriate, or credibility procedures for qualitative evidence.

8.4 Data Collection

Present procedures sequentially, including relevant timing, settings, activities, and safeguards.

Intervention studies should describe the intervention sufficiently for readers to understand its implementation.

8.5 Data Analysis

Explain how data were analyzed and why the analysis is appropriate.

For quantitative research, discuss relevant statistical procedures, assumptions, effect sizes, confidence intervals, and control of bias where applicable.

For qualitative research, explain coding, analytical interpretation, reflexivity, and evidence supporting the findings.

For mixed-methods research, identify how quantitative and qualitative evidence was integrated.

8.6 Methodological Quality

Explain appropriate procedures for establishing research quality.

Do not claim that validity, reliability, credibility, or trustworthiness has been demonstrated without reporting relevant evidence.

8.7 Research Ethics

Describe relevant approvals, permissions, consent, child assent, confidentiality, and data-protection measures.

Studies involving elementary school students require particular attention to children's welfare and privacy.

9. Writing the Methods Section for Review Articles

Review Articles must describe a transparent process for identifying, selecting, evaluating, and synthesizing scholarly evidence.

9.1 Review Design

Identify the type of review and justify its suitability for the research question.

9.2 Search Strategy

Report databases, search terms, Boolean operators, dates, restrictions, and supplementary search methods.

Where feasible, provide complete reproducible search strings.

9.3 Eligibility Criteria

Specify the inclusion and exclusion criteria before presenting the findings.

Criteria should be consistent with the research question and review design.

9.4 Study Selection

Explain screening and selection procedures, including management of duplicates and disagreements between reviewers where applicable.

Systematic reviews should include an appropriate flow diagram.

9.5 Data Extraction and Quality Appraisal

Describe how study characteristics and findings were extracted and whether methodological quality or risk of bias was assessed.

9.6 Evidence Synthesis

Explain the procedures used to integrate findings across studies.

A scholarly review must examine patterns, contradictions, conceptual connections, methodological limitations, and implications.

Simply arranging paragraphs that summarize individual articles does not constitute an adequate evidence synthesis.

9.7 Relevant Reporting Standards

Use PRISMA 2020 for systematic reviews and PRISMA-ScR for scoping reviews where appropriate.

Reporting standards must be applied in accordance with their intended purposes.

10. Presenting the Results

The Results section answers the question:

What did the research find?

Results should be organized according to research questions, hypotheses, analytical categories, or synthesized themes.

10.1 Quantitative Findings

Report relevant descriptive and analytical evidence.

Where appropriate, include sample statistics, effect estimates, confidence intervals, exact p-values, and other information needed for interpretation.

Avoid reporting only whether a hypothesis was accepted or rejected.

10.2 Qualitative Findings

Present themes or analytical findings supported by relevant evidence such as quotations, observations, or documents.

Protect participant confidentiality and explain how the evidence supports each interpretation.

10.3 Review Findings

Present the characteristics of included studies and the results of the synthesis.

Evidence tables, thematic maps, and appropriate synthesis figures may improve clarity.

10.4 Organizing Results

A useful pattern is:

Avoid repeating every number in the text when the information is already presented clearly in a table.

11. Developing a Critical and Analytical Discussion

The Discussion explains:

Why do the findings matter, and how do they contribute to existing knowledge?

JIEEd recommends the following flexible sequence:

11.1 Applying the PREC Framework

The Point–Reason–Evidence–Conclusion (PREC) framework can help authors build coherent analytical paragraphs.

Illustrative example:

Structured formative feedback may support elementary students' mathematical reasoning by encouraging them to reconsider their problem-solving strategies. This interpretation is consistent with the view that formative assessment can promote reflective engagement when feedback provides actionable information. In the present study, the observed reasoning patterns and documented student responses provide evidence relevant to this explanation. Together, these findings suggest that feedback design may be important for supporting conceptual learning in elementary mathematics.

This is an illustrative writing example, not a statement of actual study results.

11.2 Comparing Findings with Previous Studies

Explain whether results support, contradict, extend, or qualify earlier research.

Where contradictions exist, consider methodological, contextual, population, or theoretical differences.

11.3 Explaining Scientific Contribution

Identify the specific contribution of the findings.

Avoid merely repeating that a teaching strategy is useful or effective.

11.4 Educational Implications

Recommendations must be supported by the evidence and appropriately qualified.

11.5 Research Limitations

Discuss significant limitations affecting interpretation, credibility, transferability, or generalizability.

Do not use limitations as a generic closing statement without explaining their implications.

12. Writing the Conclusion

A strong conclusion should synthesize the findings and identify their scholarly contribution.

Authors should:

• Address the research objectives directly.
• Present the principal evidence-based conclusion.
• Explain the contribution to elementary education.
• Indicate appropriate practical or theoretical implications.
• Acknowledge significant limitations when relevant.
• Identify meaningful opportunities for future research.

Avoid introducing new data or making claims that exceed the findings.

13. Preparing Tables, Figures, and Supplementary Materials

Tables and figures should improve communication of research evidence.

Use informative titles, consistent numbering, clear labels, and publication-quality formatting.

Every table and figure must be referenced in the manuscript text.

Do not reproduce the same information unnecessarily in multiple forms.

Authors must obtain permission to use copyrighted material where necessary and protect the identities of children and other research participants.

14. Managing Citations and References

JIEEd requires APA 7th Edition.

Authors must follow the journal's current reference policy, including the minimum number of references and recent journal-literature requirement.

Reference selection should prioritize scientific relevance, methodological quality, and direct support for claims.

A strong manuscript integrates previous scholarship into its argument rather than using citations as decoration.

14.1 Citation Accuracy

Verify author names, publication dates, article titles, journal information, and DOI links against the original sources.

14.2 Reference Management

Use reference-management software such as Zotero, Mendeley, or EndNote to improve consistency.

14.3 Avoiding Citation Problems

Do not include fabricated references, cite publications that do not support the associated claim, or inflate citations without scholarly justification.

AI-generated references must be independently verified against authentic sources.

15. Research Integrity and Ethical Declarations

Before submission, authors must ensure that their manuscripts meet the journal's publication-ethics requirements.

Relevant declarations include:

• Authorship and author contributions.
• Ethical approval and participant consent.
• Funding.
• Competing interests.
• Data availability.
• Acknowledgments.
• Substantive artificial intelligence use.

Authors conducting research with children must apply appropriate ethical safeguards, including privacy protections, parental consent where required, and age-appropriate assent.

Ethical statements must reflect procedures actually undertaken.

16. Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligence

Artificial intelligence tools may assist certain aspects of manuscript preparation when permitted by JIEEd's AI Use Policy.

Authors remain fully responsible for every scientific claim, citation, finding, interpretation, and conclusion.

AI tools cannot be listed as authors.

Substantive use of AI must be disclosed according to journal requirements.

AI must not be used to fabricate evidence, invent citations, conceal misconduct, or process confidential participant data through unauthorized systems.

Authors should verify all AI-assisted information against appropriate primary sources.

17. Common Reasons Manuscripts Require Major Revision or Are Rejected

Authors should evaluate their manuscripts against the following recurring weaknesses.

These examples illustrate common manuscript-quality concerns. Editorial decisions depend on the specific submission and the journal's peer-review procedures.

18. Final Self-Assessment Before Submission

Authors are encouraged to evaluate their manuscripts using the following questions.

Scientific Contribution

• Does the manuscript address a meaningful research question?
• Is the research gap supported by existing literature?
• Is the contribution clearly explained?

Methodological Quality

• Is the research design appropriate and justified?
• Are participants, data sources, instruments, and procedures transparent?
• Are analytical and quality-assurance procedures adequate?
• For Review Articles, are search, selection, appraisal, and synthesis procedures clearly explained?

Results and Discussion

• Do the findings answer the research questions?
• Are the findings supported by sufficient evidence?
• Does the Discussion explain their meaning and significance?
• Are the implications and conclusions proportional to the evidence?

Research Integrity

• Are citations accurate and complete?
• Are relevant ethical safeguards reported?
• Are funding, competing interests, and data availability addressed?
• Has substantive AI assistance been disclosed where required?

Manuscript Preparation

• Does the manuscript follow the official JIEEd Article Template?
• Does it comply with the Author Guidelines?
• Is the academic English clear and coherent?
• Are all author details and submission metadata accurate?

19. Official Resources and Submission

Authors should consult the journal's official instructions before submitting their manuscripts.

Author Guidelines ↗

Download Official Article Template ↗

Submit Manuscript via OJS ↗

Final Recommendation

Before submitting, authors should ask:

A well-prepared manuscript should provide a convincing answer through its research problem, methodology, evidence, interpretation, and conclusions.