Placing Authorial Explanation at the Core of Scientific Writing: An Analytic-Interpretive Model

Abstract

Introduction: Manuscripts submitted to Social Science journals often reproduce existing theories without developing their own interpretation of the data, which limits their analytical contribution. While the IMRaD structure provides a clear framework for scientific writing, its widespread use tends to prioritize description and literature review over authorial explanation. This article explores how authorial explanation can be positioned at the core of the analytical process. Materials and methods: This study takes a qualitative approach, drawing on a narrative review of the literature on academic writing, key editorial documents, and the author’s own editorial experience. The analysis identifies and categorizes recurring challenges in manuscripts, including the instrumental use of theory, inadequate methodological justification, and limited interpretation of findings. Results: The article proposes a writing model centered on three core operations: (i) clearly defining the research problem and theoretical gap; (ii) explicitly outlining methodological choices and decisions; and (iii) presenting findings alongside authorial interpretation grounded in the data. The model distinguishes between description, theoretical application, and explanation, highlighting the latter as the distinctive element of a scientific contribution. Practical examples demonstrate how raw data and analytical categories can be transformed into meaningful, substantive explanations. Discussion: Strengthening authorial explanation improves the analytical rigor of articles, encourages critical engagement with existing theories, and limits the uncritical reproduction of theoretical frameworks. The proposed model provides guidelines applicable across diverse methodological traditions, offering a practical reference for enhancing scientific writing.