Scientific research still represents the essence of science. But what leads to good scientific research, leading to excellent research results that leave a legacy and impact on the world? Obviously, this research must be of the most relevant scope. Examples of such research are research carried out by Nobel laureates. When asked what advice they would like to give young people regarding the search for Nobel Prizes: Ciechanover, Hershko, Gross, Jelinek, Wilczek, Buck, Axel and Chauvin, the answers can be summarized as follows:
o Try to ask the important question;
o Investigate something new;
o Study something that fascinates or obsesses you;
o Think about what nature reveals to you;
or think independently;
o Focus on things you don’t understand as an individual;
o Don’t investigate things that fall under the mainstream of the investigation; and
o Complete the process.
This clearly indicates that researchers should strive to investigate something that is of personal interest and that has the characteristics of novelty, authenticity and integrity. This, of course, in the words of Zion and Slezak (2005), is a much more difficult task than a guided survey.
The purpose of this article is to infer the general research guidelines that can be offered to researchers to improve the quality of research results based on the advice provided by leading researchers from around the world.
Based on the advice provided by the Nobel laureates, the researcher will translate, based on a literature review, the concepts into general principles of research teaching.
1. Investigate Something New That Obsesses The Researcher:
Novelty is often discovered by studying the other side of the popular research medal. Research knowledge can be gradually developed and accumulated over time by focusing on the fine details of all research work, reading, corresponding conclusions, and identifying contradictions.
Amara and Landry’s research that researchers and companies that have access to a wider variety of sources of information increases the chances of new research.
2. Think independently:
Being able to think independently implies that the researcher must participate constructively in the research process, individually or in groups, and be able to influence decisions about the content and direction of the research. However, according to Zion and Slezak (2005), this should be based on the principles of “flatness” in research activities, the ability to internalize the evaluation process, openness to experience, flexibility in research. ‘focus and autonomy in the definition of research objectives and selection of appropriate methods to carry out the research. Another prerequisite is that the investigator have disciplinary skills. The better the researcher masters the disciplinary aspects of the field of study, the greater the possibilities of doing good research.
3. Reflect on What Nature Reveals:
Critical and reflective thinking is necessary to know what to believe, what to do and if the results obtained were reasonable. When unexpected results are obtained, the investigator should continue her investigation to find possible explanations. This may, among other things, require an investment to improve the infrastructure available to conduct more sophisticated surveys or surveys to find answers from the literature or other researchers or experts in the field. However, if the unexpected results were due to an error in the approach, it is still the investigator’s duty to find out where it went wrong and then repeat the search to test the reliability of the data obtained.
Reflect on what nature reveals. Critical milestones are necessary in each investigation and allow evaluating the performance of the investigation. At all critical stages of the research program, the researcher must explore what new areas of scientific discovery are opening up and how this could benefit society in general. Also, has the research objective been fully achieved and is the program still ongoing? It is also of utmost importance to determine if the researcher has the capacity to support or expand the research potential or to consider recruiting more experience to take advantage of the full potential of the researcher.
4. Drive the Process Towards Compliance:
Bringing the research process to a conclusion requires a personal and professional commitment for better or for worse (Burns, 2004) while the researcher sets in motion a process of discovery, validation, verification, importance. and relevance. Too often, researchers stop before real progress is made. Perhaps the last two concepts, adequacy and importance, which often play the most important role in determining the final state of the research, are overlooked in the planning and execution phases of the project. of research. The relevance of the research refers, according to Hornbaek (2006), to “the ability to be used by humans easily and effectively”. In this sense, the researcher must consider questions such as:
- Are the results obtained precise enough to be used by others?
- Are the results complete enough for other users to understand them correctly?
- Is the quality of the results such that others would like to use it? and
- Will potential users trust the accuracy of the results obtained?
- The importance of research is generally determined by (Burns, 2004):
- The level to which scientific research adjusts and contributes to the traditional academic traditions of the discipline in terms of ethos, discourse and discovery;
- The level at which findings and conclusions are validated and verified by applying dynamic research designs and methodologies and continuous improvement.
- The systemic way in which the literature is used to support research results and inform the research process; and
- The originality or novelty of research, because it opens up new and better forms of knowledge and understanding.
Winning research is highly dependent on the new knowledge created by research and the added value it creates for society as a whole. Based on the assumption that the researcher masters the research design and methodology skills, focusing on the personalization of interest in research, autonomous thinking, critical reflection on research discourse and guarantee that research meets all integrity requirements, Improve the quality and value of a research program.