Writing, authorship, and peer review are core practices in applied and collaborative research. They shape how ideas are clarified, how contribution is recognised, and how knowledge moves between research, policy, and practice communities. While these activities are often treated as technical or procedural steps, they also involve judgement, interpretation, and shared responsibility.
The resources curated here provide practical guidance on writing for publication, navigating authorship, and reviewing manuscripts. They are relevant to postgraduate researchers, early-career academics, experienced practitioners, and anyone involved in producing or assessing research outputs. The emphasis is on established guidance that supports clarity, fairness, and constructive engagement, rather than on prescriptive templates or disciplinary rules.
This resource page is complemented by a reflective blog post that looks more closely at peer review as a lived practice. Rather than offering guidance, it reflects on judgement, interpretation, boundaries, and care in reviewing, particularly in complex, interdisciplinary and practice-oriented work. Peer review as a practice of judgement and care explores what is often left unsaid in formal guidance, drawing on reviewing experience in sustainability, evaluation, and social change contexts.
This page is intended to sit alongside more reflective discussions on the Learning for Sustainability site about writing, evaluation, and peer review as practices of learning and care. Together, these resources support both the practical tasks of writing and reviewing, and the wider responsibilities that come with contributing to shared fields of knowledge.
Writing for publication
These resources support researchers and practitioners to turn complex, practice-based work into clear, coherent written outputs, with an emphasis on structure, transparency, and making reasoning visible for diverse audiences.
A guide to publishing scientific research in the health sciences
In this article, Patricia Huston and Bernard Choi outline a clear, stepwise approach to planning, structuring, drafting, and revising scientific papers. Although written with early-career researchers in mind, the focus on argument, logical flow, and tailoring to audience travels well to practitioners who need to turn applied or interdisciplinary projects into concise, readable manuscripts for diverse journals.
EQUATOR Network – Toolkits for Writing Research
The EQUATOR Network’s toolkits offer practical guidance on planning, writing, and reporting research, with a focus on clarity, transparency, and making assumptions explicit. While developed largely in health and policy contexts, they can be useful for practitioners and applied researchers as prompts for what information readers may need in order to interpret and use a study. Used selectively, the toolkits support clearer communication without prescribing methods or narrowing how research questions are framed.
Tips for writing for publication
This CADRE brief offers practical guidance for education and practice-oriented researchers on framing contributions for practitioner and policy audiences, choosing outlets strategically, and writing with clarity for mixed readerships. It complements the more health-oriented focus of the other resources by foregrounding relevance, audience, and purpose, making it particularly useful for applied and collaborative projects.
Authorship, contribution, and publication ethics
These guides focus on how contribution, responsibility, and recognition are negotiated in collaborative research, offering practical reference points for discussing authorship, acknowledgements, and ethical responsibility early and revisiting them as work evolves.
Authorship guidelines
The British Sociological Association’s authorship guidelines address criteria for authorship alongside questions of power, equality, and the social organisation of research. Practitioners and interdisciplinary researchers can use this resource to support more reflexive conversations about ordering of authors, recognition of different kinds of labour, and how to acknowledge community or practice partners in ways that respect their contributions.
Defining the role of authors and contributors
The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors outlines criteria for who qualifies as an author and how contributors should be recognised. For practitioners and collaborative teams, this document provides a clear baseline for discussing authorship, shared responsibility, and accountability, which can then be adapted to fit applied, interdisciplinary, or non‑health contexts.
Guidelines on authorship in scholarly or scientific publications
Brown University’s guidelines emphasise early, explicit discussion of authorship, the need to revisit agreements as projects evolve, and the importance of documenting contributions. This is particularly relevant for practitioners working in multi‑actor collaborations because it offers concrete prompts for project charters, helping teams surface expectations, negotiate fairness, and avoid disputes later in the publication process.
Peer review principles and practice
These resources provide guidance on the purposes and responsibilities of peer review, supporting reviewers to engage critically and constructively with manuscripts while maintaining fairness, integrity, and respect for authors and the wider field.
Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers
The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) outlines core expectations for reviewers, including expertise, confidentiality, managing conflicts of interest, objectivity, and constructive feedback. This resource is useful for practitioners stepping into reviewer roles because it clarifies both responsibilities and limits, and can serve as a reference point when negotiating roles with editors, co‑reviewers, or mentees.
Peer review: the nuts and bolts
Sense about Science’s guide explains how peer review works, why it matters, and where its limitations and controversies lie, using accessible language and cross‑disciplinary examples. It is particularly useful for practitioners because it situates peer review within wider evidence cultures, discusses bias and innovation, and introduces newer and open models, helping readers see reviewing as part of shared responsibility for trustworthy knowledge.
The editors speak: what makes a good review
This org.theory blog post brings together the thoughts from a number of current and former editors at journals in organizational theory and sociology who were asked to comment about what they think makes a good review. You’ll notice that the editors seem to agree on several important points (e.g., be constructive!), but there is some variation as well. The range of perspectives helps readers see both common expectations and legitimate differences in how editors understand the reviewer role.
If you’re working independently or as part of a collaborative team and would like to reflect on your approach to writing, authorship, or peer review, feel free to contact me. I’m always happy to explore what might be helpful in your context, whether that’s by email or a brief videoconference.
If you’ve found this page helpful, consider sharing it with others who might benefit too. You can also sign up for occasional site updates to hear about new tools, guides, and key resources.