Empirical paper outline (APA / JARS)

Get the architecture right before writing, so the paper argues rather than reports.

After the analysis, before the first draft.28 fields

How this document is used well

The structure is not arbitrary. The introduction narrows from a problem to a specific prediction; the method lets someone repeat what you did; the results report what happened without interpreting it; the discussion interprets without exceeding the design. Papers fail at the joints — most often in the discussion, which quietly upgrades an association into a cause.

The introduction, in four moves

1The problem, and why it matters to somebody.
2What is known — organised as an argument, not a list.
3The specific gap, stated so narrowly that the study obviously addresses it.
4The aim and the hypotheses, in the order the results will report them.

Complete it

Nothing you type leaves this browser. Do not enter real patient information.

Title this document

Shows why each item is asked

Frame

Working title

Say what was studied and, ideally, what was found.

The paper in one sentence*What does the field not know without this paper?*Target journal, and why that oneReporting guideline being followed

Introduction

The problem*What is known — as an argument*The specific gap*Hypotheses or aims, numbered*

Were these pre-registered?

Yes — registration linkedPartly; deviations will be declaredNo, but presented as confirmatoryNo — labelled exploratory

Method

Design*Participants — recruitment, eligibility, demographics reported in enough detail to judge generalisability*Sample size justification / power analysisMeasures, with psychometrics in this sample*Procedure — could a competent stranger repeat it?*Ethics approval reference and consent procedure*Analysis plan, including handling of missing data and multiplicity*

Can you state that all measures, manipulations and exclusions are reported?

YesNo — and this will be explained

The "21-word solution". Including it commits you to completeness, which is the point.

Results

Participant flow / attrition — diagram needed?Primary result, with effect size and CI*Secondary and exploratory analyses, labelled as suchReliable and clinically significant changeAdverse events and deterioration*

Report this even when there is nothing to report; say how it was monitored.

Discussion

What was found, in plain language, without interpretation*What it means, in relation to the literature in the introduction*

Does your design support causal language?*

Yes — randomised and controlledNo — language checked for "effect", "impact", "leads to", "improves"

Limitations — name the specific alternative explanation you could not exclude*

A limitations section listing only sample size and generalisability is a formality.

What should change as a result — and be honest if the answer is nothing yet*

19 required fields outstanding: The paper in one sentence; What does the field not know without this paper?; The problem …

How this document is used well

The introduction, in four moves

Complete it

What Praxical.Psych is, and is not