Divulging something out to the public does not make it an investigative report. Here are the common characteristics of the widely appreciated as investigative r
eport:Adversarial in nature. The report must make a stand not to conform to what is obvious or what is shared by institutions to the public. The approach in probing or challenging the suspected anomaly must be done in a professional and credible way. Moralistic in tone. The report should present a MORAL stand solution to replace the anomaly being investigated. In the public sector, the report is mostly on misuse of funds, mismanagement or abuse of power. Checking and rechecking of sources and documents – a MUST to get the credibility of the report. Involves investment of time, money and human resources. Takes courage, persistence, conviction and enterprise on the part of the reporter and the paper. Scientific papers are for sharing your own original research work with other scientists or for reviewing the research conducted by others.
As such, they are critical to the evolution of modern science, in which the work of one scientist builds upon that of others. To reach their goal, papers must aim to inform, not impress. They must be highly readable that is, clear, accurate, and concise. They are more likely to be cited by other scientists if they are helpful rather than cryptic or self-centered. Scientific papers typically have two audiences: first, the referees, who help the journal editor decide whether a paper is suitable for publication; and second, the journal readers themselves, who may be more or less knowledgeable about the topic addressed in the paper. To be accepted by referees and cited by readers, papers must do more than simply present a chronological account of the research work. Rather, they must convince their audience that the research presented is important, valid, and relevant to other scientists in the same field. To this end, they must emphasize both the of it, and they must include just enough evidence to establish the validity of this outcome.
Papers that report experimental work are often structured chronologically in five sections: first, and (together, these three sections make up the paper\’s body); and finally,. section clarifies the motivation for the work presented and prepares readers for the structure of the paper. section provides sufficient detail for other scientists to reproduce the experiments presented in the paper. In some journals, this information is placed in an appendix, because it is not what most readers want to know first. sections present and discuss the research results, respectively. They are often usefully combined into one section, however, because readers can seldom make sense of results alone without accompanying interpretation they need to be told what the results mean. (Papers reporting something other than experiments, such as a new method or technology, typically have different sections in their body, but they include the same sections as described above. ) Although the above structure reflects the progression of most research projects, effective papers typically break the chronology in at least three ways to present their content in the order in which the audience will most likely want to read it.
First and foremost, they summarize the motivation for, and the outcome of, the work in an abstract, located before the. In a sense, they reveal the beginning and end of the story briefly before providing the full story. Second, they move the more detailed, less important parts of the body to the end of the paper in one or more appendices so that these parts do not stand in the readers\’ way. Finally, they structure the content in the body in theorem-proof fashion, stating first what readers must remember (for example, as the first sentence of a paragraph) and then presenting evidence to support this statement.