Margins: Top – 3 cm; Bottom – 2 cm

Left, Right – 2,2cm

Title

Rodica CRUDU, associate professor

Summary

The summary should contain the actuality of your research topic, research objective and hypothesis, research methods,
results, data analysis, and conclusions. Your summary should be maximum one page. The summary should be written in
3rd  person allowing the readers to get a quick glance of what the contents of the study include. Writing a summary or
abstract is rather challenging as being brief, accurate and concise are requisite. The headings and structure for an
abstract are usually provided in the instructions for authors. In some instances, the abstract may change slightly pending
content revisions required during the peer review process. Therefore, it often works well to complete this portion of the
manuscript last. Remember the abstract should be able to stand alone and should be as succinct as possible.

Introduction

In the introduction you should state the problem or objective of your research paper (why did you study? Why it is
worth studying? Does the proposed study have practical significance?); formulate the research question(s), developed
purposes/objectives and hypotheses and briefly discuss the structure of your paper, i,e, what follows in the section two,
three etc.

1. Literature review

In this section do critical review of the quant articles/papers that are relevant to your research topic/question. This
review should include the research question asked by the authors; theories used; research hypothesis stated; significance of
the study; data, sources, variables etc.; statistical tools used in the analysis; findings and implications of the papers of your
study – theory, data and statistical techniques (Crudu, 2016, p.15).
When constructing a review of the literature, be attentive to “sticking” or “staying true” to your topic at hand. For
example, do not include extraneous information about performance or prevention if your research does not actually address
those things. The literature review of a scientific paper is not an exhaustive review of all available knowledge in a given
field of study. That type of thorough review should be left to review articles or textbook chapters. Throughout the
introduction (and later in the discussion!) remind yourself that a paper, existing evidence, or results of a paper cannot draw
conclusions, demonstrate, describe, or make judgments, only PEOPLE (authors) can. “The evidence demonstrates that”
should be stated, “Smith and Jones, demonstrated that….”
Conclude your “literature reviw” part with a solid statement of your purpose(s) and your hypothesis(es), as
appropriate. The purpose and objectives should clearly relate to the information gap associated with the given manuscript
topic discussed earlier in the introduction section. This may seem repetitive, but it actually is helpful to ensure the reader
clearly sees the evolution, importance, and critical aspects of the study at hand. Crudu et all (2017)
 Gggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg
ggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
sshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh:
- Hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh;
- Hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh;
- Hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh;
Hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg
gggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhh
hhhhhhhhhhhshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
hhhhhhhh

Hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg
gggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhh
hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. (Crudu, 2003, p.7)
Hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhh. Hhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
ggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg.

2. Data and Methodology

Describe what indicators you use to measure the variables of your research, what is the source of your data and what methods of
research you will be using in your paper.
The methods section should clearly describe the specific design of the study and provide clear and concise description of the
procedures that were performed. The purpose of sufficient detail in the methods section is so that an appropriately trained person
would be able to replicate your experiments.

3. Results and Discussions

In this section describe the model you are going to use and the hypotheses that you are formally testing. What is your
dependent and independent variables? Do the descriptive analysis of your dependent and independent variables.

3.1. The results section should describe the results only.

Report your results neutrally, as you “found them”. Again, be thoughtful about content and structure. Think carefully
about where content is placed in the overall structure of your paper. It is not appropriate to bring up additional results, not
discussed in the results section, in the discussion.

3.2. The discussion section should put those results into a broader context.
All results must first be described/presented and then discussed. Thus, the discussion should not simply be a repeat of
the results section. Carefully discuss where your information is similar or different from other published evidence and why
this might be so. What was different in methods or analysis, what was similar?
Remember, just as in the introduction and literature review, evidence or results cannot draw conclusions, just as
previously stated, only people, scientists, researchers, and authors can!
 Finish with a concise, 3‐5 sentence conclusion paragraph. This is not just a restatement of your results, rather is
comprised of some final, summative statements that reflect the flow and outcomes of the entire paper. Do not include
speculative statements or additional material; however, based upon your findings a statement about potential changes in
clinical practice or future research opportunities can be provided here.
Sdjabdkfvef jcfnvbnv mvfmd jcf dcjndhvuf, dudvbdfuid djfbbfcjejnf cbddb ndb hhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhhh
hhhhh hhh hhhh hhhhhhhhhhhhhh. (Table 1)

Table 1. Title

Source: European Commission (2016)

Hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg
gggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhh
hhhhhhhhhhhshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
hhhhhhhh. Ghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh (Figure 1).

Figure 1. The evolution of the per capita R&D expenditure made by the Business in EU countries, EUR

Source: Eurostat, indicator’s code [rd_e_gerdtot].

Conclusions
Writing for publication can be a challenging yet satisfying endeavor. The ability to examine, relate, and interlink
evidence, as well as to provide a peer‐reviewed, disseminated product of your research labors can be rewarding. A few
suggestions have been offered in this commentary that may assist the novice or the developing writer to attempt, polish, and
perfect their approach to scholarly writing.
References
Armstrong, L. (2014). Barriers to Innovation and Change in Higher Education. TIAACREF Institute. Retrieved June 10,
2016, from https://www.tiaainstitute.org/public/pdf/barriers-to-innovation-and-change-inhigher-education.pdf
Danson, M. and Whitman, G. (1999), Regional Governance, Institutions and Development, retrieved from
http://www.rri.wvu.edu.htm
European Commission (2012), Report on Competition Policy COM 257 final, 16 April, Brussels.
Smith, M. (2014), European institutions, in: Hill, G. and Perry, J. (eds.), European political framework, London: Routledge,
pp. 17-40

How to cite?
General rules:
- All references included in the reference list should be cited in the text, and vice versa.
- It is recommended to indicate the page for a citation.
- In case of sources in a language other than English shall be use the original title in Latin alphabet
- Arange all sources alphabeticaly, not by format of publication (book, journal, etc.)
- web sources with very large links, it is recommended to shorten them (use http://www.webcitation.org/archive.php)

Citation in text
Source with one author: Smith (2013, p. 52) indicate that... or (Smith, 2013, p. 52)
Source with two authors: Smith and Danson (2013, p. 52) indicates that... or (Smith
and Danson 2012, p. 52)
Source with more than two authors: (Smith et al., 2013, pp. 52-53)
Two or more works in the same citation (alphabeticaly, then Several authors indicate (Danson, 2013; Smith et al., 2013;
cronologicaly): Wiley, 2010; 2014)

Citation in the reference list

Book with one author Smith, M. (2013), Pocket guide to cultural assessment, London: Routledge.

Book with two authors Smith, M. and Danson, M. (2012), Regional Governance, Institutions and Development,
London: Routledge.

Book with more than two Smith, M. Whitman, G. and Danson, M. (2012), Regional Governance, Institutions and
authors Development, London: Routledge.

Chapter in book Smith, M. (2014), European institutions, in: Hill, G. and Perry, J. (eds.), European
political framework, London: Routledge, pp. 17-40.
Journal article Smith, M. (2013), European policy and European institutions, Eastern Journal of
European Studies, 6(1), pp. 25-70. or
Smith, M. and Whitman, G. (2013), European policy and European institutions, Eastern
Journal of European Studies, 6(1), pp. 25-70 (retrieved from
http://ejes.uaic.ro/article/smith.pdf).

Working paper Andrews, D., Criscuolo, C. and Gal, P. (2016), The Best versus the Rest: The Global
Productivity Slowdown, Divergence across Firms and the Role of Public Policy, OECD
Productivity Working Papers, No. 5, OECD Publishing, Paris (retrieved from
http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/download/63629cc9-en.pdf).

Official document European Commission (2012), Report on Competition Policy COM 257 final, 16 April,
Brussels.
OECD (2014), Development Report: Mobilising Resources for Development, OECD
Publishing (retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1/dcr-2014-en).

Law European Parliament (2012), Law on on Competition Policy (retrieved from

http://ec.law.eu/competition).

Paper present at a conference Smith, M. (2013), European policy and European institutions, EURINT 2016 Conference,
Iasi, Romania, 20-21 May (retrieved from
http://www.cse.uaic.ro/eurint2016/papers/smithm).

Electronic source Danson, M. (2013), Regional Governance. Institutions and Development (retrieved from
http://www.rri.wvu.edu/ WebBook/Danson/contents.htm).

Online newspaper* Danson, M. (1999), European institutions, The New York Times, 25 September (retrieved
from http://www.nyt.cor/article2565.htm).
The New York Times (1999), Crissis in European Union, 30 December (retrieved from
http://www.nyt.cor/article255256.htm).