In Hungary, and probably other countries, scientific articles are viewed as more valuable, or perhaps stable, the longer they are. This is because, unlike measuring the length of a document, the novelty – value – of the ideas in an article is immeasurable. Why else do universities and teachers set up as an important parameter of homework, dissertations or theses the length of the document (in pages or character numbers)? In my opinion, it is time to move on from a quantity approach towards one of quality.

In Hungary, and probably other countries, scientific articles are viewed as more valuable, or perhaps stable, the older they are. This is because, unlike measuring the length of a document, the novelty – value – of the ideas in an article is immeasurable. Why else do universities and teachers require, as an important parameter in homework, dissertations or theses, page or character numbers in citations? In my opinion, it is time to move on from a quantity approach towards one of quality.

• should not be defined using overly complex scientific terminology: use simple definitions so that the layman with an interest in psychology, but without an extensive theoretical background, can understand it and so participate in the debate
• should be summarized (if possible) with a drawing or illustration. Sometimes “a picture tells a 1,000 words”

• try to avoid cross-referencing boring articles: use as many links as possible, but by putting a proper link in a page your job is not complete. The page you link to usually contains much irrelevant information. Your reader would not enjoy searching for the relevant information in a completely new visual environment: better is to describe clearly what the relevant findings of that article were, and provide a footnote for those who would like to double-check it
• it should be re-read from the readers' viewpoint(s), and edited before it is posted

Be ethical by being simple. Follow Mr. Kant's basic principle: do not do to others what you would not like to be done to you, so do not write boring articles that you would not like to read yourself. Try to have fresh, new ideas every three or four sentences to maintain reader’s’ interest. If you can not do that, restructure your text, and check if all words and sub-sentences are relevant and needed.

You might spend an additional hour or two in making your text better and more information-dense. Readers will then read and understand it in less time.

In Hungary, and probably other countries, scientific articles are viewed as more valuable, or perhaps stable, the longer they are. This is so as, unlike measuring the length of a document, the novelty – value – of the ideas in an article is immeasurable. Why else do universities and teacher require an important parameter in homework, dissertations or theses page or character numbers? In my opinion, it is time to move on from a quantity approach towards one of quality.

In Hungary, and probably other countries, scientific articles are viewed as more valuable, lor perhaps stable, the older they are. This is so as, unlike measuring the length of a document, the novelty – value – of the ideas in an article is immeasurable. Why else do universities and teacher require an important parameter in homework, dissertations or theses page or character numbers? In my opinion, it is time to move on from a quantity approach towards one of quality.

A good article is easy to read...

• it should not be complicated in what it says; better split into two or three different statements
• should not be defined using overly tricky scientific terms: use simple definitions so that the layman with an interest in psychology but without extensive theoretical background can understand it and so participate in the debate
• should be summarized (if possible) with a drawing/illustration. Sometimes “a picture tells a 1,000 words”
• should contain examples
• should not be a scientific article. Nobody worries about detailed descriptions of experiments, including the number of research subjects, unless they were too few. The detailed results of experiments should be left to the debate
• try to avoid cross-referencing boring articles: use as many links as possible, but by putting a proper link in a page your job is not complete. The page you link to usually contains much irrelevant information. Your reader would not enjoy searching for the relevant information in a completely new visual environment: better is to describe clearly what were the relevant findings of that article and provide a footnote for those who would like to double-check it
• it is should be re-read from the readers' viewpoint(s) edited before it is posted
• should have a clear structure. Without a well-built presentation even the best idea will reach only those (perhaps 5% of the community) who cannot be bored and who have enormous patience
• here you can find a template

Be ethical by being simple. Follow Mr. Kant's basic principle: do not do with others what you would not like to be done to you, so do not write boring articles that you would not like to read either. Try to have fresh, new ideas every three or four sentences to maintain the reader’s interest. If you can not do that, restructure your text and check if all words and sub-sentences are relevant and needed.

You might spend an additional hour or two in making your text better and more information-dense. But readers will read and understand it in less time. Is that not fair behaviour?

Article

In Hungary, but maybe in other countries scientific articles are viewed the more precious as the longer they are. And this is done because opposite to the length of a document, the novelty of the ideas in an article is not measurable. Why else do universities and teacher require homework or dissertation/thesis set as an important parameter in page or character numbers? In my opinion it would be the time to move on from a quantity approach towards a quality approach.

A good article is easy to be read. So it

• should not be a scientific article. Nobody cares about detailed description of experiments (including the number of research subjects - as long as they were not too few etc.). The detailed results of experiments should be used in the debates

(:toc:)

Legalábbis Magyarországon, de talán máshol is az egyetemistákat arra szocializálják, hogy egy tudományos cikk esetében a mennyiség a lényeg. A tartalom újszerűsége és használhatóságával szemben. Miről másról szólna az, amikor egy szakdolgozat vagy műhelymunka esetén karakterszámok vagy oldalak számában határozzák meg a követelményeket. Ez egy alapvetően mennyiségi szemlélet amiről tovább kellene tudni lépni a minőség felé.

• here you can find a pretty good template

• should have a clear structure. Without a well-built presentation even the best idea will reach only those (maybe 5% of the community) who are maximally bored and have enormous patience

• should not be too complicated in what it wants to say. Better split in 2-3 statements if you want to tell more

Be ethical by being simple: follow Mr. Kant's basic principle - do not do with others what you would not like to be done with you = do not write boring articles that you would not like to read either. Try to have fresh, new ideas each 3-4 sentence to keep your reader awake. If you can't do that, try to restructure your text and check if all words and sub-sentences are relevant and absolutely needed.

You might loose 1 additional hour by making your text better and more information-dense (compared to just writing your text) but 100 readers will read and understand it in 10 minutes less time. Isn't that a fair behavior?

Be ethical by being simple: follow Mr. Kant's basic principle - do not do with others what you would not like to be done with you = do not write boring articles that you would not like to read it either. Try to have fresh, new ideas each 3-4 sentence to keep your reader awake. If you can not do that, try to restructure your text and check if all words and sub-sentences are relevant and absolutely needed.

• has not got to be defined overusing tricky scientific terms: try to define it that simple as a psychology-fan without extensive theoretical background should be able to understand it in order to participate in the debates

• try to avoid cross-referring to boring articles: use as many links as possible, but by putting a proper link in a page your job is not completed. The page you were linked usually contains many irrelevant info as well. In your reader's seat you wouldn't enjoy searching the relevant info in a completely new visual environment either: better describe clearly what were the relevant findings of that article and provide a footnote for those who would like to double-check it
• it is many time re-read from readers' point of view and edited before finally is posted

Be ethical by being simple: follow Mr. Kant's basic principle - do not do with others what you would not like to be done with you = do not write boring articles that you would not like to read it either. Try to have fresh, new ideas each 3-4 sentence to keep your reader awake. If you can not do that, try to restructure your text and check if all words and sub-sentences are relevant and absolutely needed You maybe loose 1 additional hour by making your text better and more information-dense, compared to just writing your text, but 100 readers will read and understand it in 10 minutes less time. Isn't that a fair behavior?

• should not be a scientific article. Nobody cares about detailed description of experiments (including the number of kísérleti személy - as long as they were not too few etc.). The detailed results of experiments should be used in the debates

• should not be a scientific article. Nobody cares about detailed description of experiments (including the number of kísérleti személy - as long as they were not too few etc.). The results of experiments should be used in the debates

• should not be a scientific article. Nobody cares about detailed description of experiments (including the number of kísérleti személy etc.). The results of experiments should be used in the debates

A good statement is easy to be read. So it

Statement

A good statement (that is easy to be read)

• should not be too complicated
• has not got to be defined overusing tricky psychological scientific terms: try to define it that simple as a psychology-fan without extensive theoretical background should be able to understand it in order to participate in the debates
• should be summarized (if possible) in an understandable drawing/illustration. Sometimes a good drawing tells more than many pages of blah-blah
• should contain examples
• should not be a scientific article. Nobody cares about detailed description of experiments (including the number of 'kísérleti személy' etc.). The results of experiments should be used in the debates
• try to avoid cross-references to boring articles: instead describe clearly what were the relevant findings of the article and provide a footnote for those who would like to double-check it

Don't forget to be ethical: follow Mr. Kant's basic principle - do not do with others what you would not like to be done with you = do not write boring articles that you would not like to read it either. Try to have a fresh, new ideas each 3-4 sentence to keep your reader awake. If you can not do that, try to restructure your text and check if all words and sub-sentences are relevant and absolutely needed