The evaluation of agricultural research and the resultant scientific article

Abstract

The efficiency of agricultural research in the RSA and the reporting of results need to be improved. Clarifying the accepted procedure for research and identifying common weaknesses in the resultant publications could contribute towards achieving this goal. All research originates with a question and is therefore, in essence, the acquiring of new knowledge. The following steps need to be taken: (1) Present a clear definition of the question to be answered. This should be stated in such a way that it defines rigorously the objective of the research. (2) Study all relevant observed facts from previous research work. (3) Formulate an hypothesis based on the observed facts. This is achieved by inductive reasoning. (4) Collect reliable data by observation, review or experiment to test the hypothesis. (5) Interpret the results to verify or reject the hypothesis. This is the process of deductive reasoning. If the hypothesis is verified it becomes the answer to the question, if rejected a new hypothesis is needed and the process repeated. Common pitfalls are a failure to define the objective clearly and inadequate study of previous research work, failure to formulate a clear hypothesis, inadequate data and poor interpretation of results. Common weaknesses in publications are lack of conciseness, haphazard literature citations, weak logic, unnecessary tables and diagrams and unsupported generalizations. It would be advantageous if more attention was given in the training of agricultural research scientists to the correct procedure for carrying out research work.