Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Using technology-based tools in ensuring quality of publishable journal articles: the case of Chinese undergraduate research writing experience

  • Published:
Education and Information Technologies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Undergraduate student engagement in research publication facilitates their intellectual development and professional social interaction and leads to increased sense of self-efficacy and trust in science and recognition as a researcher. Scientific publication is a pillar which gauges intellectual human capital of countries in the global innovation index. This paper presents the effectiveness of using technology-based tools in ensuring the quality of articles for journal publication. It fundamentally employed pre- and post-test research design to determine the effectiveness of online technology-based tools before and after the intervention. It employed descriptive presentation of the different on-line technology tools used in the 21 specimens of student researches written in publishable article format. It examined the quality of references, level of readability, writing quality, originality, and grammar of the papers before and after the review process and interventions. The study highlighted that using online tools improved the quality of the papers with respect to grammar and lexical quality, similarity index, readability index, number of references, number of correct bibliographic entries for submission in high impact journals. A higher level of a cleansing process using the online technology tools ensures the quality of publishable articles. Implications of this study will facilitate journal article writing skill of academic community to effectively disseminate results of research studies with higher chances of being accepted in respected global databases as contribution to knowledge generation and development of the country.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ahlstrom, D. (2012). Several key reasons why a paper is likely to be rejected at the Asia Pacific Journal of Management. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-012-9315-7.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ahmad, S. S. (2015). Research and its importance. Ophthalmol Open J, 1(1), e1–e2. https://doi.org/10.17140/OOJ-1-e001.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Ajami, S., & Movahedi, F. (2013). Challenges for authors and publishers in scientific journal. doi:https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.291(Suppl).3550

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Akhtar, J. (2008). Why Articles get rejected at JCPSP: Myths and realities. Journal of the College of Physicians and Surgeons Pakistan, 18(10), 599–600. https://doi.org/10.2008/JCPSP.599600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alden, J., & Lin, G. (2004). Benchmarking the characteristics of a world-class university: Developing an international strategy at university level. Londres: Leadership Foundation for Higher Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ali, J. (2010). Manuscript rejection: causes and remedies. Journal of Young Pharmacists: JYP, 2(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.4103/0975-1483.62205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alwzinani, F. (2017). A method to disseminate and communicate IS research outputs beyond academia. Brunel University London: Doctoral dissertation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Archibugi, D., Denni, M., & Filippetti, A. (2009). The technological capabilities of nation ns: The state of the art of synthetic indicators. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(7), 917–931. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2009.01.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azer, S. A., Dupras, D. M., & Azer, S. (2014). Writing for publication in medical education in high impact journals. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci, 18(19), 2966–2981.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baig, S., Ahmed, S., & Antique, H. (2016). Reviewing a manuscript: disparity amongst peer reviewers priorities from basic health sciences and clinicians. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak, 26(8), 677–680.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron, R. A. (2006). Opportunity recognition as pattern recognition: How entrepreneurs “connect the dots” to identify new business opportunities. Academy of Management Perspectives, 20(1), 104–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baždarić, K. (2012). Plagiarism detection–quality management tool for all scientific journals. Croatian medical journal, 53(1), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.3325/cmj.2012.53.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bordage, G. (2001). Reasons reviewers reject and accept manuscripts: the strengths and weaknesses in medical education reports. Academic Medicine, 76(9), 889–896. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200109000-00010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradley, C. (2011). Plagiarism education and prevention: A subject-driven case-based approach. Elsevier.

  • Brtka, V., Berkovic, I., Ognjenovic, V., & Brtka, E. (2016). Martinov. Improving Readability of Medical Data by Using Decision Rules: D., & Stojkovic–Jovanovic, T. https://doi.org/10.20544/AIIT2016.30.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bucheli, V., Díaz, A., Calderón, J. P., Lemoine, P., Valdivia, J. A., Villaveces, J. L., & Zarama, R. (2012). Growth of scientific production in Colombian universities: an intellectual capital-based approach. Scientometrics, 91(2), 369–382. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0627-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, D. W. (2000). Common reasons for rejecting manuscripts at medical journals: A survey of editors and peer reviewers. Science Editor, 23(2), 39–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carpi, A., Ronan, D. M., Falconer, H. M., & Lents, N. H. (2017). Cultivating minority scientists: Undergraduate research increases self-efficacy and career ambitions for underrepresented students in STEM. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(2), 169–194. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daffern, T., Mackenzie, N. M., & Hemmings, B. (2017). Predictors of writing success: How important are spelling, grammar and punctuation? Australian Journal of Education, 61(1), 75–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004944116685319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dangal, G., Hamal, P. K., & Giri, M. (2017). Understanding Research and Scientific Publication. Journal of Nepal Health Research Council, 15(1). https://doi.org/10.3126/jnhrc.v15i1.18005.

  • Dogra, S. (2011). Why your manuscript was rejected and how to prevent it? Indian Journal of Dermatology, Venereology, and Leprology, 77(2), 123. https://doi.org/10.4103/0378-6323.77449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ezeala, C. C., Nweke, I. N., & Ezeala, M. O. (2013). Common errors in manuscripts submitted to medical science journals. Annals of Medical and Health Sciences Research, 3(3), 376–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faunce, G. J., & Soames Job, R. F. (2001). The accuracy of reference lists in five experimental psychology journals. American Psychologist, 56(10), 829. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.10.829.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, E., Gopaldas, A., & Scaraboto, D. (2017). Why papers are rejected and how to get yours accepted: Advice on the construction of interpretive consumer research articles. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 20(1), 60–67. https://doi.org/10.1108/QMR-06-2016-0051.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flesch, R. (1948). A new readability yardstick. Journal of applied psychology, 32(3), 221. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0057532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franco, A., Malhotra, N., & Simonovits, G. (2014). Publication bias in the social sciences: Unlocking the file drawer. Science, 345(6203), 1502–1505. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1255484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • García-Merino, T., & Santos-Alvarez, V. (2009). Characterizing the top journals in strategic management: orientation, style, originality, and readability. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 40(4), 420–439. https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.40.4.420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gasparyan, A. Y., Yessirkepov, M., Voronov, A. A., Gerasimov, A. N., Kostyukova, E. I., & Kitas, G. D. (2015). Preserving the integrity of citations and references by all stakeholders of science communication. Journal of Korean medical science, 30(11), 1545–1552. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2015.30.11.1545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gehanno, J. F., Rollin, L., & Darmoni, S. (2013). Is the coverage of Google Scholar enough to be used alone for systematic reviews. BMC medical informatics and decision making, 13(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-13-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gevers, W., Mati, X., Mouton, J., Page-Shipp, R., Hammes, M., & Pouris, A. (2006). Conclusions and recommendations for a strategically enhanced role of research publishing in South Africa. Report on a strategic approach to research publishing in South Africa, 107.

  • Gilmore, J., Vieyra, M., Timmerman, B., Feldon, D., & Maher, M. (2015). The relationship between undergraduate research participation and subsequent research performance of early career STEM graduate students. The Journal of Higher Education, 86(6), 834–863. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2015.0031.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffies, S. M., Perrie, W. A., & Hull, G. (2013). Elements of style for writing scientific journal articles. Publishing Connect, Elsevier.

  • Gyasi, W. K. (2017). Taylor and Francis Journals under the critical lens of readability analysis. AFRREV IJAH: An International Journal of Arts and Humanities, 6(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.4314/ijah.v6i2.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haddaway, N. R., Collins, A. M., Coughlin, D., & Kirk, S. (2015). The role of Google Scholar in evidence reviews and its applicability to grey literature searching. PloS one, 10(9), e0138237. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0138237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haddow, G. (2010). Communicating research to practice: The role of professional association publications. Library and Information Research, 34(108), 33–44. https://doi.org/10.29173/lirg332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hesterman, C. M., Szperka, C. L., & Turner, D. P. (2018). Reasons for manuscript rejection after peer review from the journal Headache. Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain, 58(10), 1511–1518. https://doi.org/10.1111/head.13343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holschuh, J. L. (1998). Why manuscripts get rejected and what can be done about it: Understanding the editorial process from an insider's perspective. Journal of Literacy Research, 30(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/10862969809547979.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, K. M., Kaiser, M. J., Jennings, S., McConnaughey, R. A., Pitcher, R., Hilborn, R., & Rijnsdorp, A. (2014). Investigating the effects of mobile bottom fishing on benthic biota: a systematic review protocol. Environmental evidence, 3(1), 23. https://doi.org/10.1186/2047-2382-3-23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: Writing and editing for biomedical publication. 2010. Available from: http://www.icmje.org/urm_full.pdf. [Last cited 2011 June 3].

  • Kapp, C., & Albertyn, R. (2008). Accepted or rejected: editors’ perspectives on common errors of. Acta Academica, 40(4), 270–288.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, V. P., & Rao, C. S. (2018). A review of reasons for rejection of manuscripts. J Res Sch Prof Eng Lan Tea., 8(2), 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lanamäki, A., Stendal, K., & Thapa, D. (2011). Mutual informing between IS academia and practice: insights from KIWISR-5. AIS. doi:https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.02907.

  • Lane, A., Luminet, O., Nave, G., & Mikolajczak, M. (2016). Is there a publication bias in behavioural intranasal oxytocin research on humans? Opening the file drawer of one laboratory. Journal of neuroendocrinology, 28(4). https://doi.org/10.1111/jne.12384.

  • Larsen, P., & Von Ins, M. (2010). The rate of growth in scientific publication and the decline in coverage provided by Science Citation Index. Scientometrics, 84(3), 575–603. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0202-z

  • Lee, C. J., & Lin, W. Y. C. (2013). Citation Errors in the Masters' Theses of the Library and Information Science and Information Engineering. Journal of Library & Information Studies, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.6182/jlis.2013.11(1).167.

  • Lee, S., & French, N. (2011). The readability of academic papers in the Journal of Property Investment & Finance. Journal of Property Investment & Finance, 29(6), 693–704. https://doi.org/10.1108/14635781111171814.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lopatto, D. (2004). Survey of undergraduate research experiences (SURE): First findings. Cell biology education, 3(4), 270–277. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.04-07-0045.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lykkesfeldt, J. (2016). Strategies for using plagiarism software in the screening of incoming journal manuscripts: recommendations based on a recent literature survey. Basic & clinical pharmacology & toxicology, 119(2), 161–164. https://doi.org/10.1111/bcpt.12568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madhusudhan, M. (2016). Use of online citation tools by students and research scholars of Department of library and information science, University of Delhi. DESIDOC Journal of library & information technology, 36(3). https://doi.org/10.14429/djlit.36.3.9428.

  • Martin, D. F. (2005). Plagiarism and technology: A tool for coping with plagiarism. Journal of education for business, 80(3), 149–152. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.80.3.149-152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marusic, M. and Marusic, A. (2009) “The Purpose of Scientific Journals: Small is Important”, The Journal of Tehran University Heart Center, 4(3), pp. 143–148. Available at: https://jthc.tums.ac.ir/index.php/jthc/article/view/133 (Accessed: 1January 2021).

  • Masic, I. (2011). How to search, write, prepare and publish the scientific papers in the biomedical journals. Acta Informatica Medica, 19(2), 68. https://doi.org/10.5455/aim.2011.19.68-79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masic, I., Mornjakovic, Z., Šuško, I., & Cosovic, E. (2004). Citiranjeinavodjenje literature u biomedicini. Acta Inform Med, 12(3–4), 91–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Masters, E. A. (2013). Research Misconduct in National Science Foundation Funded Research: A Mixed-Methods Analysis of 2007–2011 Research Awards. ProQuest LLC.

  • Mohammadi, R., Nikokalam, M., Bastani, P., Ghalaneh, S., Abhari, S., & Garavand, A. (2018). Citation and Content Analysis of Journal of Health Management and Informatics in 2014–2016. Journal of Health Management and Informatics, 5(2), 72–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, M. (2018). Reply to critics. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 21(6), 806–817.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mungra, P., & Webber, P. (2010). Peer review process in medical research publications: Language and content comments. English for Specific Purposes, 29(1), 43–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2009.07.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, R. (2009). Writing for Academic Journals. Maidenhead: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naik, R. R., Landge, M. B., & Mahender, C. N. (2015). A review on plagiarism detection tools. International Journal of Computer Applications, 125(11). https://doi.org/10.5120/ijca2015906113.

  • Nature. Getting published in Nature: The editorial process. Nature Online 2011. Available from: http://www.nature. com/nature/authors/get_published. [Last cited 2011 Jun 3].

  • Ojha, P. K., Ismail, A., & Kuppusamy, K. S. (2018). Perusal of readability with focus on web content understandability. Journal of King Saud University-Computer and Information Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksuci.2018.03.007.

  • Otto, J., & Partow-Navid, P. Doshi, M. (2010). Revisiting the readability of management information systems journals again. Research in Higher Education Journal, 1–7.

  • Perneger, T. V., & Hudelson, P. M. (2004). Writing a research article: advice to beginners. International journal for quality in health care, 16(3), 191–192. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzh053.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pierson, D. J. (2004). The top 10 reasons why manuscripts are not accepted for publication. Respiratory care, 49(10), 1246–1252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pimm, J. (2013). Dear Editor, why have you rejected my article? The psychiatrist, 37(10), 313–314. https://doi.org/10.1192/pb.bp.113.044784.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plavén-Sigray, P., Matheson, G. J., Schiffler, B. C., & Thompson, W. H. (2017). The readability of scientific texts is decreasing over time. Elife, 6, e27725. https://doi.org/10.1101/119370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rauhvargers, A. (2011). Global university rankings and their impact. Leadership for WorldClass Universities Challenges for Developing Countries, (June).

  • Reed, J., Deakin, L., & Sunderland, T. (2015). What are ‘Integrated Landscape Approaches’ and how effectively have they been implemented in the tropics: a systematic map protocol. Environmental Evidence, 4(1), 2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rejeesh, M. R., Thejaswini, P. (2020). MOTF: Multi-objective Optimal Trilateral Filtering based partial moving frame algorithm for image denoising. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 79(37-38), 28411–28430

  • Roe, D., Fancourt, M., Sandbrook, C., Sibanda, M., Giuliani, A., & Gordon-Maclean, A. (2014). Which components or attributes of biodiversity influence which dimensions of poverty? Environmental Evidence, 3(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/2047-2382-3-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rozovskaya, A., & Roth, D. (2010). Generating confusion sets for context-sensitive error correction. In Proceedings of the 2010 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (pp. 961–970). Association for Computational Linguistics.

  • Salkind, N. J. (Ed.). (2010). Encyclopedia of research design (Vol. 3). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412961288

  • Severance, S. J., & Cohen, K. B. (2015). Measuring the readability of medical research journal abstracts. Proceedings of BioNLP, 15, 127–133. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W15-3815.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seymour, E., Hunter, A. B., Laursen, S. L., & DeAntoni, T. (2004). Establishing the benefits of research experiences for undergraduates in the sciences: First findings from a three-year study. Science education, 88(4), 493–534. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, B. B., & Singh, V. (2011). Ethics in writing: Learning to stay away from plagiarism and scientific misconduct. Lung India: Official Organ of Indian Chest Society, 28(2), 148. https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-2113.80337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simonsohn, U., Nelson, L. D., & Simmons, J. P. (2014). P-curve: a key to the file-drawer. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(2), 534. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singer, S., & Smith, K. A. (2013). Discipline-based education research: Understanding and improving learning in undergraduate science and engineering. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(4), 468–471. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20030.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, V., & Mayer, P. (2014). Scientific writing: strategies and tools for students and advisors. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 42(5), 405–413. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.20815.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Song, F., Parekh, S., Hooper, L., Loke, Y. K., Ryder, J., Sutton, A. J., et al. (2010). Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases. Health Technol Assess, 14(8), 1–193. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta14080.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Štajner, S., Evans, R., Orasan, C., & Mitkov, R. (2012). What can readability measures really tell us about text complexity. In Proceedings of workshop on natural language processing for improving textual accessibility (pp. 14–22).

  • Stivers, J., & Cramer, S. F. (2017). From rejected to accepted: Part 2—Preparing a rejected manuscript for a new journal. The Journal of Faculty Development, 31(2), 63–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stout, D. E., Rebele, J. E., & Howard, T. P. (2006). Reasons research papers are rejected at accounting education journals. Issues in Accounting Education, 21(2), 81–98. https://doi.org/10.2308/iace.2006.21.2.81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Straub, E. T. (2009). Understanding technology adoption: Theory and future directions for informal learning. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 625–649.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stretton, S., Bramich, N. J., Keys, J. R., Monk, J. A., Ely, J. A., Haley, C., & Woolley, K. L. (2012). Publication misconduct and plagiarism retractions: a systematic, retrospective study. Current medical research and opinion, 28(10), 1575–1583. https://doi.org/10.1185/03007995.2012.728131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, G. M. (2015). What to do when your paper is rejected. doi:https://doi.org/10.4300/jgme-d-14-00686.1

  • Sundararaj, V. (2016). An efficient threshold prediction scheme for wavelet based ECG signal noise reduction using variable step size firefly algorithm. Int J Intell Eng Syst, 9(3), 117–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sundararaj, V. (2019a). Optimal task assignment in mobile cloud computing by queue based ant-bee algorithm. Wireless Personal Communications, 104(1), 173–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sundararaj, V. (2019b). Optimised denoising scheme via opposition-based self-adaptive learning PSO algorithm for wavelet-based ECG signal noise reduction. Int J Biomed Eng Technol, 31(4), 325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sundararaj, V., Rejeesh, M. R. (2021). A detailed behavioral analysis on consumer and customer changing behavior with respect to social networking sites. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 58, 102190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sundararaj, V., Muthukumar, S., & Kumar, R. S. (2018). An optimal cluster formation based energy efficient dynamic scheduling hybrid MAC protocol for heavy traffic load in wireless sensor networks. Comput Secur, 77, 277–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sundararaj, V., Anoop, V., Dixit, P., Arjaria, A., Chourasia, U., Bhambri, P., Rejeesh, M. R., & Sundararaj, R. (2020). CCGPA-MPPT: Cauchy preferential crossover-based global pollination algorithm for MPPT in photovoltaic system. Prog Photovolt, 28(11), 1128–1145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press.

  • Tecson-Mendoza, E. M. (2015). Scientific and academic journals in the Philippines: status and challenges. Science Editing, 2(2), 73–78. https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tetreault, J. R., & Chodorow, M. (2008). The ups and downs of preposition error detection in ESL writing. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Computational Linguistics-Volume 1 (pp. 865–872). Association for Computational Linguistics.

  • Thiry, H., Laursen, S. L., & Hunter, A. B. (2011). What experiences help students become scientists? A comparative study of research and other sources of personal and professional gains for STEM undergraduates. The Journal of Higher Education, 82(4), 357–388. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2011.11777209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, J. J., Conaway, E., & Dolan, E. L. (2016). Undergraduate students’ development of social, cultural, and human capital in a networked research experience. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 11(4), 959–990. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-014-9628-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tiwari, M., Tiwari, T., Sam Santhose, S., Mishra, L., MR, R. & Sundararaj, V. (2021). Corporate social responsibility and supply chain: A study for evaluating corporate hypocrisy with special focus on stakeholders. International Journal of Finance & Economics.

  • Uzuner, S. (2008). Multilingual scholars’ participation in core/global academic communities: A literature review. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(4), 250–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2008.10.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waddel, C., & Sheppard, C. (2002). Prevalence of mental disorders in children and youth: A research update prepared for the British Columbia Ministry of Children and Family Development. University of British Columbia.

  • Wager, E., & Kleinert, S. (2010). Responsible research publication: international standards for authors. Promoting Research Integrity in a Global Environment. Singapore, 309–16.

  • Weissmann, G. (2007). Publish or perish: Letter to a young contributor. The FASEB Journal, 21(3), 631–634. https://doi.org/10.1096/fj.07-0301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaiger, D. S. (2000). School nursing services: The early years. The Journal of School Nursing, 16(3), 11–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeiger, M. (2000). Essentials of writing biomedical research papers. Canadian Journal for Studies in Discourse and Writing/Rédactologie, 11(1), 33–36. https://doi.org/10.31468/cjsdwr.342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

“Research on translation strategies of government portal website publicity under the background of shaanxi free trade zone construction”, general project of social science fund of shaanxi province in 2017, Fund number: 2017 K012.

Funding

The Project Supported by National Social Science Fund of China (Grant No.AJA180008, Grant No. BJA190093).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Humanities and Social Science, Xi’an Polytechnic University, Xi’an, 710048, Shaanxi, China

    Fade Shi

Authors
  1. Fade Shi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fade Shi.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shi, F. Using technology-based tools in ensuring quality of publishable journal articles: the case of Chinese undergraduate research writing experience. Educ Inf Technol 26, 4203–4219 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10444-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10444-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation