Finding a Research Topic Worth Publishing

There is a particular conversation that repeats itself with remarkable consistency in universities across the world. It takes place in postgraduate offices, at research seminars, during conference breaks and, quite often, in the few minutes that follow a student’s request for academic guidance. The details change from one institution to another, but the pattern rarely does. An enthusiastic researcher arrives carrying a notebook or a laptop, explains that the research topic has finally been chosen, and waits expectantly for comments on the objectives, methodology or chapter arrangement. The discussion, however, seldom proceeds in that direction. Almost instinctively, the supervisor asks a different question, one that appears deceptively simple yet has the capacity to expose the strength or weakness of the entire project: Why this topic?

For many early-career academics, that question is unexpectedly difficult to answer. The immediate response is often that the subject is interesting, current or socially significant. Some explain that climate change, artificial intelligence, constitutional reform or digital privacy has become a major concern in recent years. Others point out that relatively few studies have examined the issue within a particular jurisdiction. Although such explanations are perfectly understandable, they rarely answer the question the supervisor is actually asking. Interest, relevance and contemporary importance explain why a subject deserves public attention. They do not explain why another journal article deserves to be written about it.

That distinction is easily overlooked because universities and research manuals often present the research process as a sequence of orderly steps. The student is advised to identify a topic, conduct a literature review, formulate research questions, select an appropriate methodology and proceed to writing. As a teaching model, the sequence has obvious advantages because it simplifies a process that can otherwise appear overwhelming. Unfortunately, the intellectual journey that produces a publishable article is rarely as orderly as the diagrams suggest. The manuscripts that eventually appear in respected journals seldom begin with a carefully polished title. More often, they begin with a broad intellectual curiosity that gradually acquires direction as the researcher becomes immersed in the literature, discovers where existing scholarship has reached its limits and begins to recognise questions that remain unresolved.

The difference between those two approaches is more than a matter of sequence. It reflects two entirely different ways of thinking about research. One assumes that the researcher creates a topic and then searches the literature for support. The other allows the literature to shape the topic before the writing begins. At first glance, the distinction may appear insignificant, yet it frequently determines whether a paper enters an existing scholarly conversation with something worthwhile to say or merely repeats arguments that have already been explored from several different perspectives. The disappointment many researchers experience after receiving a rejection decision is often rooted in this early misunderstanding rather than in weaknesses of style, grammar or citation.

Editors of reputable journals encounter this problem more frequently than many young academics realise. Every submission cycle brings manuscripts dealing with issues that are undeniably important. Climate litigation, environmental governance, artificial intelligence, constitutional rights, digital regulation and international human rights continue to dominate contemporary scholarship because they address questions of genuine public significance. The difficulty confronting an editor is therefore not deciding whether these subjects matter. That question has already been answered. The real challenge is determining whether the manuscript contributes something that advances the existing conversation rather than merely joining it. A carefully written article that revisits familiar arguments without offering a fresh perspective may satisfy the requirements of a classroom assignment, yet it is unlikely to survive editorial screening because journals exist to expand knowledge rather than reproduce it.

This reality explains why experienced researchers rarely become attached to a title at the beginning of a project. They understand that a title is not the starting point of research but one of its later products. Before deciding what a paper should be called, they first try to understand what the discipline itself is discussing, where scholars disagree, which legal developments have altered existing assumptions and, perhaps most importantly, where the conversation appears to end without providing a satisfactory answer. The title emerges from that exploration. It is not imposed upon it.

That observation may sound surprising to researchers who have been taught to begin with a topic, yet it reflects the way scholarship actually develops. Few academics who publish regularly would claim that the title they eventually submitted to a journal was identical to the idea with which they first began. In many cases, the original proposal survives only as a distant reminder of the project’s starting point because weeks of sustained reading gradually expose complexities that were invisible at the outset. Questions that initially appeared straightforward become more nuanced, assumptions that once seemed convincing lose their force, and entirely new possibilities emerge from careful engagement with the literature. What changes during that process is not simply the wording of the title but the researcher’s understanding of the problem itself.

For that reason, the first responsibility of anyone aspiring to publish in a high-impact journal is not to search for an attractive title but to cultivate the discipline of patient reading. That advice may sound unremarkable, yet it is perhaps the most consistently neglected aspect of academic research. Reading at this stage is not undertaken for the purpose of collecting quotations or building a bibliography. Its purpose is far more demanding. It requires the researcher to enter an ongoing scholarly conversation, to listen carefully before attempting to speak, and to understand how the discussion has developed over time. Only then does it become possible to recognise whether another contribution is genuinely necessary and, if so, where that contribution is most likely to be found.

One of the most liberating discoveries for an early-career academic is that changing a research idea after extensive reading does not represent failure. On the contrary, it often marks the point at which serious scholarship begins. A researcher who abandons an attractive title because the literature reveals a stronger and more original problem has not wasted weeks of effort. Those weeks have prevented months of writing a manuscript that would almost certainly have been criticised for offering too little that was genuinely new. In research, as in legal practice, the willingness to revise one’s position in the light of better evidence is not a sign of uncertainty. It is one of the clearest indications of intellectual maturity.

It is from that perspective that this series begins. Before discussing literature reviews, research questions, theoretical frameworks or methodology, we must first understand where a publishable research topic comes from. The answer is rarely found in a moment of inspiration or in an internet search for current issues. More often, it emerges gradually through sustained engagement with the literature until a broad academic interest is transformed into a clearly defined research problem capable of making a meaningful contribution to knowledge.

About the Author

Adekunle Saheed Akinola is an academic research consultant and legal researcher with expertise in academic research writing, comparative international human rights law, international environmental law, and sustainable development law. His research focuses on producing high-quality scholarly publications that contribute to legal scholarship and policy development. He is open to academic consultations, research collaborations, manuscript development, journal publication support, and interdisciplinary research partnerships.

For consultation or collaboration, he can be contacted via:

Email: choicelndsolicitors9@gmail.com

Phone/WhatsApp: +234 803 249 3960

ID: https://orcid.org/0009-0007-5346-8773