MD7100 RESEARCH DISSERTATION

HANDBOOK

Dissertation Coordinators:
Dr Ioannis Kanakis
([email protected])

Dr Emma Wilson
([email protected])

February 2023
1
Every effort is made to ensure that the information contained in these guidelines
(and other related documentation) is accurate at the time of publication.
However, due to the dynamic nature of any education programme, and the
current COVID pandemic, there will be inevitable changes to course content,
structure, and itineraries. We therefore strongly recommend that you regularly
check your emails and visit MD7100 Moodle site.

2
 CONTENTS PAGE

1. Introduction 5

2. Dissertation Overview 7

3. Supervisory Process 8

4. Developing a Research Idea 10

5. Research Approval Process 13

6. Research Ethics 16

7. Assessment Details 19

8. Writing Your Research Article (Assessment 1) 23

9. Oral Viva Presentation (Assessment 2) 31

10. Assessment 33

3
 APPENDICES PAGE

Appendix A Originality Declaration 35

Appendix B Notes on ‘Differentiating between research,

service evaluation and audit’ 36

Appendix C University of Chester guidance on research approvals

and permissions 37

Appendix D Publishing your work 39

Appendix E Academic Integrity 41

4
 1. INTRODUCTION

Module Information
Module Code & Name: MD7100 Research Dissertation
Level: 7
Credits: 60
Dissertation Coordinators: Dr Ioannis Kanakis & Dr Emma Wilson

This handbook contains important information to help you through the research dissertation of your
MSc programme. It is important that you read it carefully and keep it as a valuable reference
throughout this process. Where the guidance is not clear or you require additional information, you
can also seek help from either of the dissertation coordinators and your dissertation supervisor.

The following summarises key details with respect to the research dissertation module:
• Research dissertation is an opportunity to investigate systematically and in depth a topic of
personal interest and of relevance to your programme of study
• Each student will be supervised by an academic supervisor
• Some projects should be considered with respect to ethics. You should seek advice from the
dissertation coordinator or your supervisor to determine which procedures may apply to your
chosen project.

The research stage of your MSc may be one of the most challenging aspect of your studies. Success
in the planning, development, execution and completion of the dissertation project will require great
discipline and organization. You will need around 600 hours of study to complete the dissertation
project (the dissertation represents the equivalent of three 20 credit modules). This includes time
spent searching the literature, reading, preparing a research proposal, planning, collecting and
processing data, analysing and the interpreting data, writing the research article and preparing
and delivering the oral viva presentation.

The dissertation module is your opportunity to put the information, skills and ideas you have
gathered in the taught elements of the program into practice and generate your own unique
contribution to your chosen discipline – students often view their research project as the most
rewarding and enjoyable aspect of their studies.

In addition to the academic standards required for level 7 study which you should now be familiar
with, the successful completion of the research dissertation will require and develop the following
skills:
• Identification of an issue worthy of investigation which is relevant to your programme of study
• A critical evaluation and appraisal of relevant published literature
• Experimental design
• Project management – from planning through to completion on schedule
• Competence in various programme appropriate skills and methods
• Ability to analyse and interpret data and draw reasoned, evidence-based conclusions
• Dissemination of findings, both written and verbally.
5
These skills will be important throughout your career and will be valued by current and future
employers.

Recommended Reading

Biggam, J. (2017). Succeeding with your master's dissertation: A step-by-step handbook (Fourth
ed.). London, United Kingdom: Open University Press

Blaxter, L., Hughes, C. & Tight, M (2010) How to research. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Harris, M., Taylor, G., & Taylor, J. (2013). Maths & stats: For the life and medical sciences (Second
ed.). Banbury: Scion Publishing.

Holmes, D., Moody, P., Dine, D., & Trueman, L. (2017). Research methods for the biosciences
(Third ed.). Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.

Kumar, R. (2019) Research methodology: A step-by-step guide for beginners (5th edition)
London: Sage.

Mitchell, M. L., & Jolley, J. M. (2013). Research design explained (8th, International ed.).
Australia; Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Oliver, P. (2010) The student’s guide to research ethics (2nd edition) Buckingham: Open
University Press.

Saks, M and Allsop, J. (2019). Researching Health, Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods.
(3rd Edition). Sage. London.

6
 2. DISSERTATION OVERVIEW
This is a general overview of the dissertation processes if you are undertaking your project at the
University of Chester. The timescale of each project will vary and you should discuss this with your
supervisor.

7
 3. SUPERVISORY PROCESS
Once you have expressed your research interests to the dissertation co-ordinators (completion
of the project interest form), you will be allocated a supervisor to support you with your
dissertation project. Your supervisor will be a valuable resource to you and although it is possible
to complete your dissertation without much input for the supervisor, it is inadvisable.

The supervisor’s role is to provide advice and guidance to achieve success, but day-to-day
management of the research is not the role of the supervisor. The ownership of the research
project is the responsibility of you as the student.

The Supervisor’s Role

The supervisor's role is principally:

1. To provide direction on aspects of your research such as:

• Initial research ideas
• Sources of literature
• Research proposal
• Ethics application forms
• Timetable for completion
• Suitability of methods
• Data analyses – additional statistical expertise may also be sought

2. To give guidance about the standard of work expected.

3. To monitor and make recommendations on progress

The expectations of students and supervisors are likely to be different and it is worthwhile
considering these as it will aid in the formation of a good working relationship.

Supervisor/Student Expectations
As a student you may expect a supervisor who:

• Is friendly, open and constructive

• Offers constructive criticism
• Is contactable by email and is able to offer online supervisory meetings
• Has a good working knowledge of the research area
• Has an open mind on research methodology

8
Supervisors are likely to expect students to:
• Be responsible for the day-to-day management of their own project
• Be independent workers
• Be highly motivated
• Follow advice
• Produce written work that will ultimately be of publishable quality
• Organise and attend supervisory meetings which the student has prepared for
• Maintain a record of the research undertaken and share this with the supervisor

Communication
As a general rule, a supervisor will endeavour to respond to a student’s correspondence within
one week of it being received unless he/she is away from the University or on annual leave.

Supervisory Meetings

It is your responsibility as a student to seek advice and/or arrange appointments with your
allocated supervisor. The supervisor is not obliged to seek you out if you fail to take up the support
offered.

It is the supervisor's responsibility to make available time when students may arrange meetings
and to inform students of any extended unavailability during the course of the research project.
Supervisors are likely to take annual leave at some point during the project, they should make you
aware of these dates and it is your responsibility to arrange a meeting before they go on annual
leave, if required.

Supervisory meetings are likely to be held online via Teams – you are encouraged to turn your
camera on for supervisory meetings, but this is not compulsory.

Supervisors expect students not to cancel meetings at short notice or – worse – to fail to
attend planned meetings

It is the students’ responsibility to initiate meetings and students should be well prepared for
meetings. It is generally useful if the supervisor is given a brief outline summarising the key
points for discussion in advance.

When seeking advice, it will not be deemed acceptable to say “I have all this data – HELP – I
don’t know what to do with it.” You should in the first instance make a personal attempt to
determine what the best strategy is. It is much more appropriate to seek advice with the
statement “I have examined my data using the [... named …] statistical test for the following
reasons […stated …] and I am having the following difficulty [… given in summary …].

9
All students are advised to maintain a record of communication and meetings with their
dissertation supervisor along with any agreed action points. A template to record these
meetings can be found on MD7100 Moodle Page.

Although there is no set number of meetings/emails required, it is anticipated that certain stages
of the research thesis process may require you to be in contact with your supervisor more often
than at other stages. For example, you may find that you need more support at the research
proposal or data analysis phase than at any other time. It is in your interest to maintain contact
throughout the project with your supervisor.

Whilst you are working on your dissertation, you may on occasions, be considering seeking help
from someone other than your supervisor. In the first instance, you should contact the
dissertation coordinators who may be able to guide you in seeking extra support. If you intend
to seek advice from another member of staff, or from anyone external to the University, it is
important that you inform your supervisor who may make the first contact for you.

4. DEVEPOLING A RESEARCH IDEA

Throughout the taught elements of your programme you will have read widely and thought
of/been introduced to many interesting topics for a potential research project.
Sources of potential ideas for research include:

• Discussions with academic staff;

• Lectures;
• Research themes of interest to academic staff (please watch ‘STAFF RESEASRCH INTERESTS’
videos on MD7100 Moodle site
• Work from former students (usually a dissertation will end with suggestions for future work);
• Your workplace;
• Collaborative projects (with other research groups/consultants);
• Your reading of research journals – look for apparent gaps in the literature;
• Internet;
• Media.

As an MSc student you must develop a personal research idea into a worthwhile and feasible
study. Support is available from your supervisor and you should discuss your initial ideas with
them.

A wide variety of project topics are acceptable provided it is relevant to your programme but
whatever your ideas, there must be of sufficient content to allow you to demonstrate a wide
understanding of research methods and appropriate analyses for level 7 study.

Depending on your programme of study, your dissertation research project can take various. If you
are undertaking the MSc in Biomedical Science, IBMS accreditation requires you to undertake a
project which is based on data-generation and evaluation.

10
Types of research projects which you can undertake will broadly fall under one of the following
categories:

• Systematic review
• Systematic review with meta-analysis or analysis of data published in peer reviewed journals
• Analysis of existing unpublished data or data published in online repositories
• Laboratory based research project (where possible)
• Work based research project (where possible)
• Collection of new data from participants (questionnaire or interview)

Those who envisage undertaking a project within the workplace (namely those whom are part-time
students), usually undertake a project that is relevant/of use to the workplace. If you are in this
situation, you should already have an idea of what projects you may be able to pursue – ask your
line manager for advice on this and discuss with your dissertation supervisor. Please be aware about
ethical approval for projects undertaken in the workplace – they may require ethical approval from
your supervisor. Again, seek advice from your line manager and supervisor.

Whatever your chosen topic, there are several vital elements to consider when turning your idea
into something researchable:

• What do you actually want to find out?

• What resources are available to you?
• How much time do you have?
• Is the project financially viable?

What do you actually want to find out?

Few first-time researchers have a clear research question or hypothesis at the outset. It is more
likely that you have an idea, topic or problem that you want to explore. Therefore, at this stage,
and all future stages, discuss ideas with your supervisor. Also, at this initial stage you will need to
spend a lot time refining your research question. You can do this by thoroughly evaluating the
literature to identify any gaps in current knowledge or understanding.

Define what you actually want to find out. Set aims and objectives, then formulate a very clear
research question or draw up a testable hypothesis. Remember that often what you wish to
research and what is actually researchable are two different things. You will likely need to
narrow the focus of your original research idea in order for it to be executed in a practical and
timely manner.

What resources are available to you?

Here you should think of resources in the broadest sense to include both your own skills and
the access you have to sources of equipment and literature. You must be practical when
planning your study. Your own skills may influence the research question, design, any
intervention and measurements. You should consider:

• Equipment you will need to use;

11
 • Relevant skills, e.g. laboratory techniques;
• Access to subjects if required e.g. healthy individuals;
• Research skills e.g. quantitative statistical analysis;
• Literature access - The university has subscriptions to thousands of on-line full text
journals. Further information about library support, including interlibrary loans is available
under ‘Library Support’ on MD7100 Moodle Site

How much time have you got?

It is very important to consider the time-scale of the project. Everyone is on a tight timescale
and must plan the research very carefully and thoroughly. When planning the scheduling of your
research be realistic about your other commitments and do not forget to build a couple of weeks
of contingency time into the plan to deal with the inevitable crises.

You need to consider the following:

• Does the project need ethical approval?

• How long will it take to recruit an adequate number of subjects?

• How long will it take to be competent at the techniques required to complete the research?

• How long will it take to collect the data? Research typically takes longer than expected

It is useful that you draw up a timetable for your research. Good time management through the
research process is key to successful completion of a research project.

Is the project financially viable?

Your supervisor will be able to advise you whether your proposal is financially viable during your
initial discussions regarding your research ideas.

12
 5. RESEARCH APPROVAL PROCESS

This flow chart provides an overview of the research approval process, further information is
available on the following pages.

13
 Contacting Your Supervisor

You will receive a message via MD7100 news forum when supervisors have been allocated. Where
possible, all students will be notified of supervisor allocations at the same time. You will then need
to go onto MD7100 Moodle Site, under ‘SUPERVISOR DETAILS (FEB)’, you will find a ‘Supervisor
Allocation List’ as well as supervisor contact details.

It is your responsibility to then contact your supervisor by email within 7 days to arrange your first
supervisory meeting. Your supervisor will then arrange a time/date when they are available to
meet with you on Teams to discuss your initial project ideas. This initial advice will focus on whether
the subject you have chosen is likely to be suitable for a MSc level dissertation and feasible to
complete. All projects should be carefully considered in discussion with your supervisor. Your
supervisor will then ask you to complete a research proposal. Your supervisor will be able to advise
if any further meetings are required to discuss the research proposal.

If your project will require ethical review, you should also complete an ethics application form in
discussion with your supervisor. See Section 6 for further guidance on ethical review processes.

Research Proposal Form

Firstly, you will need to download the research proposal form which can be found on MD7100
Moodle site under ‘RESEARCH PROPOSAL (FEB2023)’. The document is a Word document which
you must download and complete. If you are unable to download the document, please contact
one of the dissertation co-ordinators.

There are eight sections of the form which must be completed in full:

Section A: Student/Programme Details

Section B: Project Type
Section C: Project Aims and Objectives
Section D: Permission and other considerations
Section E: Human Ethical Considerations
Section F: Further Information
Section G: Data storage – Compliance with GDPR and data protection
Section H: Student Declaration
Section I: Supervisor Review

Further guidance is available on the form. If you are unsure how to complete the research
proposal, please contact your supervisor.

Once you have completed the form (including your signature), you will need to email this to your
supervisor by the date set by your supervisor. Please note this will be in advance of the research
proposal submission deadline as your supervisor needs to review your proposal and changes may
be required. If your supervisor does not support the proposal, they will contact you to discuss
amendments. If your supervisor supports the proposal, they will return a signed PDF copy of your
proposal. Once your supervisor has signed the form, you must not make any changes prior to
submission.

14
Research Proposal Deadline

Research Proposal Form – 14.00pm, Monday 07th August 2023

Research Proposal Submission

Research Proposal Submission Details

• You must submit one PDF copy of your completed research proposal form (including your
signature and your supervisor’s signature) to the following submission inbox which can be
found under ‘RESEARCH PROPOSAL (FEB2023)’ on MD7100 Moodle site:
o RESEARCH PROPOSAL FORM

Your research proposal will then be reviewed by another academic, independent of your project.
If any concerns are identified with the proposed project, your supervisor will be notified and will
contact you to discuss further.

If your research is approved, there will be four main outcomes:

Research Approval Process

1. Project does not require any further ethical review and does not involve lab work – Your
supervisor will confirm that you can begin undertaking the research

2. Project does not require any further ethical review but involves lab work.
- Your supervisor will confirm you can proceed with the project but relevant health and safety
paperwork must be completed before you can start working and collecting data in the lab
(See ‘HEALTH & SAFETY’ on MD7100 Moodle Site).

3. Research requires ethical review and involves lab work

- You will need to wait for the outcome of your ethical review by FREC before you can begin
undertaking the project. Once your research has been approved by FREC, your supervisor will
confirm that you can begin undertaking the research. Relevant health and safety paperwork
must also be completed before you can start working and collecting data in the lab. Please
discuss this with your supervisor.

4. Research requires ethical review but does not involved lab work.
You will need to wait for the outcome of your ethical review by FREC before you can begin
undertaking the project. Once your research has been approved by FREC, your supervisor will
confirm that you can begin undertaking the research.

No research should be undertaken without relevant approval.

15
 6. RESEARCH ETHICS

Faculty of Medicine & Life Sciences Research Ethics Committee (FREC)

Project proposals involving human subjects/tissue samples must have ethical approval and will
be subject to formal consideration by an appropriate ethics committee:

• Faculty of Medicine & Life Sciences Research Ethics Committee (FREC)

OR

• Research Ethics Service (RES)

OR

• Another recognised external ethics committee (subject to individual confirmation by

your supervisor/dissertation co-ordinator).

Research Ethics Committees focus their reviews on the following:

• The rationale for the work;

• Procedures to be followed – with special attention on safety matters and minimization of

hazards to participants and researcher;

• The competence of the researcher and others involved;

• Nature of proposed participants;

• Nature of information provided to prospective participants (and their families where this is
appropriate);

• Confidentiality of data.

Your dissertation supervisor or dissertation coordinator will be able to advise if your research
will require ethical approval. If in doubt – ask.

Students should seek the advice of their supervisor regarding procedures for ethical review. No
applications must be submitted for ethical review (whether internal or external to the
University) without the approval of the dissertation coordinator and supervisor.

No data collection should be undertaken before receiving a letter of ethical approval.

No research dissertation will be considered for assessment if appropriate research ethics

procedures have not been followed.

16
 The University of Chester empowers faculties to appraise students’ projects in their domain for
their ethical nature. The Faculty of Medicine and Life Sciences requires all research that involves
human or animal participants, their tissue and/or data to have an ethical review. FREC receives
and reviews applications from postgraduate students from all departments across the Faculty
where submission to an external Research Ethics Committee is not required.

More details about FREC requirements and deadlines are available on the FREC website

• You will need to firstly download the application form and guidance notes from the Resources
page

• It is your responsibility to complete the application form, however your supervisor will support
you with your application. Please ensure you allow sufficient time (at least 10 days) for your
supervisor to read, approve and sign your proposal before submission to FREC. Applications
without the correct signatures will be sent back.

Applicants are reminded to:

• Submit applications within sufficient time if working to tight deadlines.

• Attach your list of references, curriculum vitae and any other supporting documentation
to your Application Form and submit as one Word document (PDFs will not be accepted).
• Obtain all necessary signatures - applications without the required signatures will be
returned to the applicant
• Submit your application via email to [email protected] before the deadline.

Gaining ethical approval can take time and therefore if your project requires ethical approval,
this must be gained as soon as possible.

Please note that the committee meets only on pre-determined dates (once a month) and for
each meeting there will be a deadline before which your application must be submitted.

Applications are reviewed on a ‘first submitted, first reviewed’ basis and in cases of large volumes
of applications being received it is possible that some applications may be referred to an
‘overspill’ meeting for review. Please be aware that this will result in a two week delay. Following
the meeting, it may take several weeks to gain approval if the committee requires further
information/clarification on your application.

Therefore, it is vital you submit your application as soon as possible. A list of dates of FREC
deadlines and meetings is available on the FREC website.

17
 Research Ethics Service (RES)

Work conducted within the NHS will require local R&D approval. Arrangements for submission of
your application will vary from place to place and specific local advice may be needed.

The Research Ethics Service (RES) is committed to enabling and supporting ethical research in the
NHS. It protects the rights, safety, dignity and wellbeing of research participants.

A useful decision tool is available online to help you determine if your study requires NHS Research
Ethics Committee approval.

Application forms must be completed through the Integrated Research Application System
(IRAS).

If you are undertaking a project at your workplace which requires RES ethical approval, you should
send a copy of the approval letter to your supervisor at the University and also submit a copy to
the supplementary information submission inbox. You may also need ethical approval through the
University but your supervisor will be able to advise on this.

18
 7. ASSESSMENT DETAILS
You will be required to submit your dissertation in the form of research article suitable for
publication, followed by an oral viva presentation to discuss the research undertaken.

There are a number of advantages to using these assessment types:

• It will improve your skills in writing in a concise, focussed, scientific manner which is required in
a number of scientific/clinical professions
• It allows for easier transition of your research project into a format which may be published in a
research journal
• It encourages advanced skills in summative critical thinking, presentation and encourages
academic debate

Assessment Requirements, Submission Deadlines & Details

The assessment requirements are outlined below. Each assessment must be submitted
electronically via the relevant submission links on MD7100 Moodle Site under the topic
‘ASSESSMENT SUBMISSION (FEB2023)’. It is your responsibility to submit the relevant file to the
correct inbox.

Assessment 1

Assessment 1 Requirements

• Research article written in a style suitable for publication in a peer reviewed journal.
• This assessment accounts for 70% of the module mark
• The word count for the research article is 6000 words.
• Assesses learning outcomes 1-4
o Demonstrate knowledge of relevant literature and of research methods in order to identify
areas for investigation and to develop a feasible research plan relevant to the programme
of study
o Develop personal research skills (and laboratory skills if appropriate) through use of
academic literature, data collection and data analysis in order to undertake a Master's
level research dissertation
o Synthesise findings from your own research with the research and scholarship of others.
o Critically discuss the completed project highlighting the strengths, limitations and
implications for future study and/or investigation

• You must include a cover page with your signed declaration (Appendix A).

19
Assessment 1 Deadline

Assessment 1: Research Article – 14.00pm, Monday 04th December 2023

Assessment 1 Submission Details

• You must submit two identical copies of your research article to two separate submission
inboxes:
o ASSESSMENT 1: RESEARCH ARTICLE (Marker 1)
o ASSESSMENT 1: RESEARCH ARTICLE (Marker 2)
This is to allow independent marking of your research article. It is essential that you submit
two copies.
• You must submit PDF files

Assessment 2

Assessment 2 Requirements

• Oral viva presentation critically discussing the research undertaken.

• This assessment accounts for 30% of the module mark
• The presentation should last a maximum of 15 minutes, this will be followed by questions
from the assessors.
• Assesses learning outcomes 5
o Demonstrate advanced skills in summative critical thinking, presentation and academic
debate via an oral presentation

Assessment 2 Deadline

Assessment 2: Oral viva presentation slides - 14.00pm, Monday 11th December 2023
Viva presentations will take place between 08th and 29th January 2024. You will be advised of the
date, time and location of your viva presentation closer to the time.

Assessment 2 submission Details

• You must submit one copy of your presentation slides as a PowerPoint file to the following
submission inbox:
o ASESSMENT 2: ORAL VIVA PRESENTATION
• You will only be permitted to present the PowerPoint slides which you have submitted
through Turnitin

Please note that you will not permitted to undertake the oral viva presentation if you have not
submitted the research article and PowerPoint presentation slides.

20
Supplementary Information (Optional)

Supplementary Information Requirements

• This is an optional submission

• You should include additional information that, whilst not necessary for the main body of the
paper, provides the markers with evidence of the thoroughness with which the study was
conducted. It can include the following:
o Raw data/preliminary optimisation experiments
o Additional methods such a participant information sheet, questionnaires
o Evidence that the study has been reviewed by the appropriate ethics committee
• Words in the supplementary information submission do not contribute to the word count for
the research article

Supplementary Information Deadline

Supplementary Information (Optional) – 14.00pm, Monday 04th December 2023

Supplementary Information Submission Details

• You must submit a single PDF file to the following submission inbox:
o SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION (Optional)

Late Penalties

You are encouraged to submit your work well in-advance of the deadline. For the research article,
you are required to submit two copies to two submission inboxes – the time/date of the latest
submission will be taken as your submission details. Please ensure you therefore allow enough
time to submit both submissions. There are a large number of students on this module and there
may be delays if you try to submit close to the deadline.

Late work will be penalised – the penalty is 5 marks for work submitted up to 24 hours after a
deadline, and 5 marks per day after this, including weekends.

Mitigating Circumstances

7-day extensions (self-certification) are permitted for assessment 1: research article only. If you
are unable to submit by the deadline and need an extension longer than 7 days, you will only be
permitted to apply for a deferral until the next assessment period.

Extensions (7-day self-certifications or extension of 7 days or more) are not permitted for
Assessment 2: oral viva presentation. If you are unable to submit by the deadline you will only be
permitted to apply for a deferral until the next assessment period. Please note that the online
application system for mitigating circumstances may allow you to apply for an extension (7-day self-
certifications or extension of 7 days or more) on MD7100 assessment 2, but this application will be
rejected by our administration team. Please note that you can defer both Assessments or only

21
Assessment 2 but not only Assessment 1. If you defer Assessment 1 you will need to apply for a
deferral for Assessment 2 as well.

Word Count

• The word count does include in-text citations but does not include the reference list, figures,
tables, figure legends or table titles.
• There will be a 10% leeway allowed above the specific word count before a penalty is applied
• The penalty for exceeding the word count will be 5 marks per 1000 words excess (e.g. a 6000-
word assignment should have 5 marks deducted if it runs 6601-7600 words)
• The maximum time for the oral viva presentation is 15 minutes.

22
 8. WRITING YOUR RESEARCH ARTICLE (ASSESSMENT 1)

There are a few key aspects to producing a well-written research article:

• It must be in the correct format and follow the correct structure
• Each section must contain material appropriate for that section
• It must be written in an appropriate style that shows good use of English.

Formatting Requirements

You will be assessed on the formatting of the research article.

There are numerous styles for journal articles, but for consistency you are required to use the
style of a BioMed Central journal relevant to your programme. Examples for each programme
can be found on MD7100 Moodle Site under the topic ‘RESEARCH ARTICLE FORMAT’

The formatting of the research article should conform to the following guidelines:
• Font style – Calibri (Body) (the same as this document)

• Font size – size 10 for the main text. The font size for tables/figures should be slightly smaller,
size 9.

• Line spacing – single line spacing

• Columns – the main text should be formatted into two columns (apart from the title, abstract,
tables and figures)

• Page numbers – pages should be included as per the style of the BMC journal relevant to your
programme

23
Research Article Structure

The content of the research article may vary somewhat depending on the type of research
project, however all research articles should be organised broadly as follows:

• Cover page - which should include a signed declaration (Appendix A) and the word count

• Title – a concise and descriptive title for your article with a reasonable length (up to 20
words). Include your name here in the style of a journal publication

• Abstract (maximum 300 words) - You should also include up to 6 key words (not included in
the title)

• Introduction (around 1500 words) - review of relevant literature to provide context and
justification for the research question

• Methods (around 1000 words) - description of the methods used to conduct the research. The
methods section should be split into subsections with appropriate headings

• Results (around 1000 words) - description of the main results split into subsections with
appropriate headings

• Discussion (around 1700 words) - interpretation of the results in relation to the research
question

• Conclusion (around 500 words) - conclusions including limitations and recommendations for
future research

• References – use must use BMC journal referencing style (see next page)

24
 Referencing

For your dissertation you must use any BMC journal referencing style. Please note that this is
different to the APA referencing style which you are likely to have used in previous assessments.

You should refer to the example BMC research articles on MD7100 Moodle Site under the topic
‘RESEARCH ARTICLE FORMAT’ for examples of the correct referencing style.

Referencing software packages will enable you to save time and better manage your references.
There are several referencing packages available -EndNote and Mendeley are most frequently
used by members of staff within Chester Medical School.

EndNote is a piece of bibliographic referencing software that helps you to collect, store and
organise your references. EndNote allows you to insert references into your word documents
using a function called ‘cite while you write’, with a choice of many pre-set referencing styles
including ‘BioMed Central’

EndNote software is invaluable for research and is recommended for anyone who wished to
improve their efficiency when studying, doing research and creating bibliographies.

EndNote X9 is available on all University of Chester open access computers and is available for
download and installation on University of Chester student personal devices. To request a copy
of EndNote, please email [email protected]

Further information and guides on EndNote are available on LIS Portal pages.

Research Article Formative Draft

You are able to receive formative feedback from your supervisor on a draft of your research
article. Submitting a draft is highly recommended, for most of you this will be the first time you
have written a research article. Draft details will be provided by your supervisor – your supervisor
may provide feedback on a section at a time or may request a full draft of the article. Draft
deadlines will be set at the discretion of each supervisor, you should discuss this with your
supervisor as soon as possible to help you manage your time. Draft deadlines are usually set well
in advance of the submission deadline to allow your supervisor time to provide feedback and
time for you to improve your article. If you send your draft after the agreed deadline, you should
not expect your supervisor to provide feedback. Your supervisor will advise you of how to submit
your draft, this will typically be by emailing your draft directly to your supervisor.

25
Research Article Structure – Further Guidance
Abstract (maximum of 300 words)
An abstract should provide a summary of the research that you have conducted. It should give brief
information about the study’s purpose, methods, results and conclusions/implications. The
abstract is often the first part of a research article that is read, so it is important to get it right.

A good abstract should be:

• Accurate – it should accurately reflect the contents of the work and should not refer to
anything that is not in the main text

• Self-contained – all abbreviations used should be defined

• Concise and specific – only essential information should be included. The abstract is not the
place to expand on thoughts. Make sure each word is needed and conveys information

• Non-evaluative – be completely objective and simply write about the paper. Do not add
comments or creative thoughts here

• Coherent and readable – write clearly and do not try to impress with long words or technical
jargon when short words will do.

Whilst the abstract may be the last part of the research article that you write, it requires careful
thought and organization, especially as the word limit is 300 words. You should consultant abstracts
from the BMC journal relevant to your programme.

As a general guide, the abstract should be organised broadly as follows:

• Background - a few sentences that concisely introduces the purpose of the research. You should
clearly identify the research question

• Methods - very briefly outline the procedures/methods adopted in your research and if relevant
key details of any statistical analysis

• Results - concisely present the important results from your analysis

• Conclusion - provide a few sentences that conclude your findings and/or state what their
implications are.

26
Example research paper abstract

Example systematic review abstract

27
Further examples are available on MD7100 Moodle site under ‘RESEARCH ARTICLE FORMAT.

Introduction (around 1500 words)

The main purpose of this section, as well as providing a concise critical review of the literature
relevant to your research study, is to provide a clear rationale or purpose for the research that you
have done.

The introduction should provide background that puts the article into context and allows readers
outside the field to understand the purpose and significance of your research. You should define
the problem you are addressing and why it is important. You should include a brief review of the
literature that is key to your research area and note any relevant gaps in this current research area.
The introduction should be concluded with a clear statement of the purpose of the research and
the research question(s) should be clearly identified.

The introduction should essentially achieve the following:

1. Summarize existing research

2. Promote the need for your study by pointing out deficiencies in existing research.

Methods (around 1000 words)

The purpose of this section is to provide sufficient methodological information so that anyone
who chooses to can evaluate the appropriateness (or validity) of your methods or can easily
replicate it.

The Methods section should:

1. Tell the reader exactly what you have done;

2. Convince the reader that what you did was correct, i.e. it should clarify issues of validity,
reliability, and describe widely accepted measurement techniques and protocols.

In order to aid clarity, it is important to arrange this information into sub-sections with
subheadings. The methods section of a research article should be written in the past tense. Refer
to previously published research articles methods sections for further guidance.

It is a good idea to ask someone who has no knowledge of your research to read this section. If it
is detailed enough, the naïve reader should be able to exactly replicate your research.

Results (around 1000 words)

The results section should describe the results of your experiments. This section is normally
supported by relevant figures and tables and includes clear empirical statements of your results

28
analysis. Again, put yourself in the position of the reader. This section must contain sufficient detail
to enable full understanding of the results, allowing a clear conclusion to be made.

The data should be presented in logical sequence which follows the logical progression of your
research – subheadings are encouraged to structure the results section.

Remember that you should only show data once, in the form of a graph or table and not in both
graph and table form. As a general rule do not merely insert either tables or graphical material
directly from SPSS – recast these in Word (tables) or Excel/Prism (graphical material) with a focus
on the relevant material. If using Graphpad Prism software, graphs are easily exportable directly
into your article, or can be saved as an image for use.

• Tables should have a table, placed above the table

• Figures should have a figure legend provided below the figure
• Tables/ figures should not overlap pages

The research article should include summary tables and figures as appropriate. It is
recommended that no more than six tables/figures be included. Remember that multiple
figures can be combined as one figure that is split into a number of parts (A, B, C etc.), but the
information presented should be related.

Although it is imperative that you accompany each table/figure with a text explanation, you must
not go beyond an objective explanation. The results section is not the place to interpret or discuss
your findings. It is not sufficient to merely refer to the table as in: The results of the analysis are
shown in Table 1. Thus, you should highlight the main features of the results in your text, but do
not attempt to interpret them (leave this for your discussion). It is important that you refer to the
relevant figure/table within the main text.

Discussion (around 1700 words)

This section provides the opportunity to `make sense' of your data in relation to previous research
and your specific research question(s). The discussion is an important to section which allows you
to demonstrate to the reader/marker that you can interpret the results correctly and that you
understand the research undertaken.

The discussion section that allows you to put your work into a wider context; a description of each
table and graph, which you included in the results section, is unlikely to be sufficient for a pass
grade. You must attempt to synthesize your results and relate them to previous work – if the
research was worth reviewing in the introduction, it is worth mentioning it again with respect to
your findings.

Begin the discussion with a summary of the major findings (in relation to the aims of the study).
Then proceed to explain systematically individual findings and support your discussion with
relevant literature. In general, you should endeavor to determine whether the results:

• answer your research question

• are consistent with what other researchers have found in this area. If they differ, why might
this be so?
29
• are likely to be due to any methodological shortcomings or flaws in the study;
• have implications or applications for existing and/or future research.

You should write in an appropriately succinct style; this may be the section that lets you down. If
you have relied too much on published work for the introduction, you may find it difficult to
maintain the same style. You should aim to relate the findings of your study to most, if not all, the
research evaluated in the introduction.

If you have followed the ‘hour-glass’ model of report writing, you will recall that the introduction
became increasingly focused and ended with the hypotheses. The discussion should show a
reversal of this pattern and begin with a statement emphasizing the primary findings of your study
and whether or not the hypotheses were supported. The discussion should then become broader
as these findings are discussed in relation to research that was reviewed in the introduction.
Secondary findings (if appropriate) should also be discussed in a similar manner.

Do not worry if your findings are not consistent with those published previously. It is more
important that you make an attempt to explain any inconsistencies; after all you are likely to have
carried out your research under somewhat different conditions from that which was published.
Inconsistencies with no explanation will be viewed somewhat negatively.

Limitations of your study should then be addressed along with implications these may have for
your results (you may have begun to do this when explaining why your findings are not consistent
with previous research in the area).

You should then make some recommendations for future research.

Conclusion (as a guide – 350 words)

Your report should end with concluding statements about the research. Your conclusions should
provide a synthesis of your key results interpretations, and how these are relevant in a wider
context – you should provide a succinct explanation of the implications of your findings.

30
 9. ORAL VIVA PRESENTATION (ASSESSMENT 2)

The oral viva presentation will take place once you have submitted your research article and
PowerPoint slides. Although oral presentations can be daunting, you will have had the opportunity to
give at least one presentation in other modules and the presentation is an opportunity to engage in
discussion about the research you have undertaken.

There are a few key aspects to producing an effective oral presentation:

• Good planning
• Effective slides which include key information and allow for wider discussion of content
• Demonstration of a very good understanding of the research undertaken and demonstration
of skills in summative critical thinking
• Clear, relaxed delivery and good timing
• Willingness to engage in academic debate regarding the research undertaken.

There will be no formative draft opportunities for the oral viva presentation – your supervisor will
not be able to look at your slides and you will not be able to practice with your supervisor. You are
however encouraged to practice your presentation, in front of family and/or friends or practice alone.

Formatting of PowerPoint slides

The formatting of the PowerPoint should conform to the following guidelines:

• Font style – Century Gothic

• Font size – Font size 36 for titles. Font size 18-24 for main content

• Referencing – you should use a numbered referencing style and provide the full references on
a reference slide(s) at the end of your presentation in the same format as your research article
(in the style of a relevant BMC journal article)

It is recommended that your PowerPoint presentation includes no more than 10 slides.

31
Oral Viva Presentation

Attendance at your viva is compulsory – if you do not attend your viva to deliver your presentation,
you will receive a mark of 0 unless a deferral has been approved.

You will first be asked to give an overview of your project in an introductory presentation
(PowerPoint presentation), lasting no more than 15 minutes and covers the following:
• The purpose of the research and the research question/aims
• overview and justification of the methods used
• results/main findings (including data analysis)
• summary of the project findings in relation to the research question and discussion of its impact
on our current state of knowledge

The remaining time will be used for an investigatory discussion with the panel. This will allow you to
engage in discussion about the research undertaken. Questions should last no more than 15
minutes.

Further guidance and support will be provided by your supervisor and in the dissertation support
sessions.

Viva Dates/Times

Oral viva presentations will take place between 08th and 29th January 2024. You will be contacted
nearer the time to advise you of the date and time of your viva. You will also be provided with more
information about what you can expect on the day of your oral viva presentation.

Viva Location

Your viva presentation will normally be held at the University of Chester, you will be notified of the
location of your viva nearer the time. If viva presentations are not able to be held face-to-face on
campus due to COVID, viva presentations will take place over Teams.

32
 10. ASSESSMENT

Research Article

After submission of your research article, the work will be assessed by two markers. Your first
marker will normally be your dissertation supervisor. The second marker will usually be another
member of the academic team; this person will be looking at the work without prior discussions
with you and hence will be able to give a fully independent view. It is possible that the supervisor
will be able to “read between the lines” due to prior discussions – but you should not rely on this.
The second, independent, marker will judge the work “as it is presented”. Each marker will review
your research article independently without access to any views, marks, or feedback from the other
marker. This is why it is important that you submit two copies of your research article via the
Turnitin submission links.

Oral viva presentation

You will deliver your oral viva presentation to two assessors: normally your supervisor and a second
marker. Oral viva presentations will also be recorded for the external examiner and for the purpose
of third marking, if required.

Marking Criteria

The dissertation assessments will be marked using marking criteria based on the University of
Chester Level 7 Generic Marking Criteria. The marking criteria will be available on MD7100 Moodle
Site.

Assessment Schedule

The University has to operate within a predetermined annual schedule; the end point of which is the
very formal ceremony at which degrees are conferred. The key elements of the final schedule relate
to submission of the dissertation and hence it’s marking. The provisional schedule is summarized on
the following page:

33
 Submission deadlines Monday 07st December 2023 (Research article)
Monday 11th December 2023 (Viva slides)
Oral viva presentation 08th - 29th January 2024
Marking completed March
Local moderation to agree common mark March
Transfer to Ext Examiner March
Module Assessment Board April
Awards Board May
Graduation in Chester Cathedral 2024 (where possible)

If the two markers are in broad agreement (within the same grade boundary) then a recommended
mark will be agreed (this is generally the case). On the rare occasions where a major difference of
opinion applies a third marker will be asked to review the work.

The external examiner is then given the opportunity to review both your work and the mark
recommended by the University markers. The external examiner is part of the quality assurance
process and the key responsibility is to ensure that any grades awarded by the University of
Chester are in line with those given on comparable programmes at other UK universities.

The Module Assessment Board (MAB) confirms the grades for dissertations and other assessed
coursework. Please note marks and feedback for this module will not be available until after
the assessment board.

The University Awards Board confirms matters such as degree awards and issues relating to annual
progression for continuing students. Your dissertation outcomes will not be announced until after
the University Awards Board in April.

If you have been successful then details relating to Graduation Ceremonies will follow. If you have
not been successful then you will be given details of reassessment options. Please note if you are
required to provide a reassessment for dissertation, your graduation will be delayed.

34
APPENDIX A ORIGINALITY DECLARATION

To be included on the cover page of your research article

FORMAT FOR DECLARATION

This work is original and has not been previously

submitted in support of a Degree, qualification or
other course.

Signed ............................................................

Date ...................................................………..

35
APPENDIX B NOTES ON ‘DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN RESEARCH, SERVICE EVALUATION AND
AUDIT’

RESEARCH CLINICAL AUDIT SERVICE EVALUATION

The attempt to derive Designed and conducted to Designed and conducted
generalizable new knowledge produce information to inform solely to define or judge
including studies that aim to delivery of best care. current care.
generate hypotheses as well as
studies that aim to test them.
Quantitative research – Designed to answer the Designed to answer the
designed to test a hypothesis. question: question:
Qualitative research – “Does this service reach a “What standard does this
identifies/explores themes predetermined standard?” service achieve?”
following established
methodology.
Addresses clearly defined Measures against a standard. Measures current service
questions, aims and objectives. without reference to a
standard.
Quantitative research -may Involves an intervention in use Involves an intervention in
involve evaluating or comparing ONLY. (The choice of use ONLY. (The choice of
interventions, particularly new treatment is that of the treatment is that of the
ones. clinician and patient according clinician and patient
Qualitative research – usually to guidance, professional according to guidance,
involves studying how standards and/or patient professional standards
interventions and relationships preference.) and/or patient preference.)
are experienced.
Usually involves collecting data Usually involves analysis of Usually involves analysis of
that are additional to those for existing data but may include existing data but may
routine care but may include administration of simple include administration of
data collected routinely. May interview or questionnaire. simple interview or
involve treatments, samples or questionnaire.
investigations additional to
routine care.
Quantitative research - study No allocation to intervention No allocation to
design may involve allocating groups: the health care intervention groups: the
patients to intervention groups. professional and patient have health care professional
chosen intervention and patient have chosen
intervention
Qualitative research uses a before clinical audit. before service evaluation.
clearly defined sampling
framework underpinned by
conceptual or theoretical
justifications.
May involve randomisation No randomisation No randomisation
ALTHOUGH ANY OF THESE THREE MAY RAISE ETHICAL ISSUES, UNDER CURRENT GUIDANCE: -

RESEARCH REQUIRES FREC AUDIT DOES NOT REQUIRE SERVICE EVALUATION DOES
REVIEW FREC REVIEW NOT REQUIRE FREC REVIEW

36
APPENDIX C UNIVERSITY OF CHESTER GUIDANCE ON RESEARCH APPROVALS AND
PERMISSIONS

The University of Chester Research Governance Handbook contains sets out procedures for the
governance of research and related activities undertaken under the auspices of the University of
Chester (‘the University’) and seeks to ensure a consistent research framework.

The following diagrams have been taken from the Research Governance Handbook and provide
guidance on research approvals and permissions:

37
38
APPENDIX D PUBLISHING YOUR WORK
After completing the MSc many students (graduates) may wish to publish their work in a journal
or to present it at an academic conference.

Publication is encouraged; however, students (graduates) should note the following conventions:

• Publication / presentation should always be discussed with the project supervisor prior to
submission.

• It is a normal expectation that the project supervisor will be co-author to any publication
arising from the MSc project. It may be appropriate for other members of the academic
staff to also be named as co-authors.

• The project supervisor will normally be named as the “corresponding author”.

39
APPENDIX E ACADEMIC INTEGRITY

The University of Chester values its students' contribution to the necessary quality of its academic
standards and awards by adhering to the principles of academic integrity and fair play in
assessment. These standards are upheld when students, completing work for assessment, act
honestly and take responsibility for the fair presentation of the contents of any work they produce
for assessment. This means that students will do nothing that has the potential for them to gain
an unfair advantage in assessment.

Clear guidance on Academic Integrity can be found on Portal under ‘Support Departments’→
‘Academic Quality Support Services’ → ‘Academic Integrity’.

Maintaining academic integrity

In order to adhere to the University’s definition of academic integrity, students are expected to
abide by the following conventions when completing work for assessment:

▪ Acknowledge all sources of information, knowledge and ideas used when completing work
for assessment by consistently and correctly using an acceptable referencing system;

▪ Produce work that is the product of their own, individual efforts. An exception to this is
where an assignment brief specifically requires a single piece of work be submitted on behalf
of a group of students.

▪ Declare when they have used work before in a previous assessment (whether successful or
not) using an acceptable referencing system;

▪ Present accurate information and data that has been obtained appropriately and which is a
fair representation of their own endeavours, knowledge and understanding;

▪ Adhere to and comply with all applicable regulatory, legal and professional obligations and
ethical requirements therein.

Breaches of academic integrity

A student will be regarded as being in breach of the Academic Integrity Policy if they act or behave
in a manner that is inconsistent with the University’s general definition of academic integrity

A breach of the Academic Integrity Policy may occur when a student knowingly acts in a way that
is contrary to the policy or does so inadvertently by means of careless scholarship. Inexperience,
intention, lack of intention or unfamiliarity with the Academic Integrity Policy will not be regarded
as a defence in the event that the policy is breached.

40
Any breach of the Academic Integrity Policy will be categorised as either unacceptable academic
practice or academic misconduct. These are dealt with in different ways according to the published
procedures.

Examples of unacceptable academic practice:

• Plagiarism: the use of ideas, intellectual property or work of others without

acknowledgement or, where relevant, permission.

• Reuse of previously submitted material: the use of work, without appropriate referencing,
that has been submitted for assessment, whether successful or not, by the same student
in this University or any other institution. This will not apply where a student is making a
resubmission for the same assessment component in the same module, unless specifically
prohibited in the assessment information.

• Collusion: the unauthorised collaboration between two or more students resulting in the
submission of work that is unreasonably similar, but which is submitted as being the
product of the submitting student’s individual efforts.

Examples of academic misconduct:

• Commissioning: engaging another person or organisation to complete or undertake an

assessment, whether a financial transaction has taken place or not.

• Falsification: the presentation of fictitious or distorted documents, data, evidence or any

other material, including submitting the work of another person as if it is their own. This
includes the submission of false evidence in an application to the Mitigating Circumstances
Board or to the Academic Appeals Board.

• Research misconduct: failure to obtain ethical approval for a research project or failure to
comply with regulatory, legal and professional obligations for research projects.

• Cheating: any action before, during or after an assessment or examination which has the
potential for the student to gain an unfair advantage in assessment or assists another
student to do so. This includes failure to adhere to the examination regulations

The University of Chester takes breaches of the Academic Integrity Policy very seriously.

Information regarding the procedures for a suspected breach of the Academic Integrity Policy can
be found on Portal.

41