Research and Report Consultancy

Facebook Linkedin X-twitter Youtube
Research Consultancy and Academic Writing and Editing service
Menu

Dr Md Nazirul Islam Sarker

Ethical Academic Writing Support vs Ghostwriting

by
Ethical Academic Writing Support vs Ghostwriting

The demand for academic writing and editing services has increased significantly as publication standards become more rigorous. However, this growth has also created confusion between ethical academic support and unethical ghostwriting practices. Understanding this distinction is essential for researchers, institutions, and journals committed to academic integrity. Academic Writing Support: What It Really MeansEthical academic writing … Read more

Why Publishing Isn’t Enough: Measuring Research Impact and Uptake

by
Why Publishing Isn’t Enough Measuring Research Impact

A research paper can be high quality yet have no real-world influence because publication represents output, not uptake. Academic systems still prioritize citations and publication counts over evidence of real use. But real impact comes when research informs decisions, changes practice, or improves outcomes. To achieve this, researchers must shift from focusing solely on outputs … Read more

Ignoring Journal Guidelines Leads to Desk Rejection

by
Ignoring Journal Guidelines Leads to Desk Rejection

Why Desk Rejections Happen So Fast Desk rejection is an editorial screening decision. It happens before peer review. Editors ask one core question first:Can this manuscript be reviewed efficiently and ethically? Journal guidelines act as a risk filter. They signal whether authors can follow instructions, respect standards, and reduce editorial burden. Multiple editorial studies confirm … Read more

Why Impact Indicators Are Poorly Defined

by
Why-Impact-Indicators-Are-Poorly-Defined

The Real Failure Happens Before Analysis Most research projects do not fail at the analysis stage. They fail much earlier—at the indicator design stage. When “impact” lacks an operational definition, it cannot be measured. If it cannot be measured, it cannot be attributed. If it cannot be attributed, it cannot survive peer review, audits, or … Read more

Time Horizon Bias in Policy Research

by
Time Horizon Bias in Policy Research

Why Timing Determines Policy Truth Policy effects unfold over time. Yet many evaluations assume impact appears instantly. This mismatch creates time horizon bias. When researchers measure outcomes before policies mature, they report null or negative effects. When they measure too late, effects blend with unrelated shocks. Reviewers then conclude: you measured the wrong effect at … Read more

Stop Confusing Knowledge Gaps with Implementation Gaps

by
Stop Confusing “Knowledge Gaps” with “Implementation Gaps”

Why Reviewers Are Losing Patience Many manuscripts claim to address a “research gap.” In reality, the evidence already exists. The failure lies in execution, not knowledge. Peer reviewers notice this mismatch quickly. Editors reject papers that mislabel delivery failures as knowledge gaps. Funders question projects that propose new studies for solved problems. This confusion damages … Read more

Why Convenience Sampling Fails Representativeness in Research

by
Why Convenience Sampling Fails Representativeness in Research

Many studies still confuse convenience sampling with representative sampling. The mistake looks small. But in peer review, it can quietly trigger rejection, credibility loss, and weak evidence claims. Convenience samples come from what is easy to reach. Online forms, single cities, single institutions, social media recruitment, and snowball sampling dominate modern research. These samples can … Read more

Research Without Risk Assessment Is Operationally Vulnerable

by
Research Without Risk Assessment Is Operationally Vulnerable

Why Research Projects Fail Is Rarely About “Methods” Many research projects do not fail because the theory is weak or the methodology is wrong. They fail because the operational system behind the research breaks down. When risks remain invisible or unmanaged, even the strongest design collapses under real-world constraints. Studies from the NIH, WHO, and … Read more

Publication Pressure Breeds Risky Salami-Slicing

by
Publication Pressure Breeds Risky Salami-Slicing

Academic publishing is competitive. Researchers feel pressure to produce frequent outputs to secure promotions, funding, and prestige. This pressure often drives a risky shortcut known as salami-slicing—splitting one meaningful study into several “minimum publishable units.” It may appear productive, but journals increasingly see it as redundant publication and questionable ethics. The consequences are far greater … Read more

Ethical Risks of Using Public Secondary Data

by
Ethical Risks of Using Public Secondary Data

Many researchers assume public secondary datasets are automatically “safe” because they did not collect the data themselves. Journal reviewers, ethics boards, and leading publishers now disagree. Ethical blind spots in secondary data use increasingly trigger desk rejections, major revision demands, compliance investigations, and reputational damage. This guide explains the most overlooked ethical risks, why they … Read more