research paper example chapter 1 5

No category

RESEARCH-PAPER-CHAPTER-1-5 (1)

Add this document to collection(s)

You can add this document to your study collection(s)

Add this document to saved

You can add this document to your saved list

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib

(For complaints, use another form )

Input it if you want to receive answer

What’s Included: Research Paper Template

If you’re preparing to write an academic research paper, our free research paper template is the perfect starting point. In the template, we cover every section step by step, with clear, straightforward explanations and examples .

The template’s structure is based on the tried and trusted best-practice format for formal academic research papers. The template structure reflects the overall research process, ensuring your paper will have a smooth, logical flow from chapter to chapter.

The research paper template covers the following core sections:

The title page/cover page
Abstract (sometimes also called the executive summary)
Section 1: Introduction
Section 2: Literature review
Section 3: Methodology
Section 4: Findings /results
Section 5: Discussion
Section 6: Conclusion
Reference list

Each section is explained in plain, straightforward language , followed by an overview of the key elements that you need to cover within each section. We’ve also included links to free resources to help you understand how to write each section.

The cleanly formatted Google Doc can be downloaded as a fully editable MS Word Document (DOCX format), so you can use it as-is or convert it to LaTeX.

FAQs: Research Paper Template

What format is the template (doc, pdf, ppt, etc.).

The research paper template is provided as a Google Doc. You can download it in MS Word format or make a copy to your Google Drive. You’re also welcome to convert it to whatever format works best for you, such as LaTeX or PDF.

What types of research papers can this template be used for?

The template follows the standard best-practice structure for formal academic research papers, so it is suitable for the vast majority of degrees, particularly those within the sciences.

Some universities may have some additional requirements, but these are typically minor, with the core structure remaining the same. Therefore, it’s always a good idea to double-check your university’s requirements before you finalise your structure.

Is this template for an undergrad, Masters or PhD-level research paper?

This template can be used for a research paper at any level of study. It may be slight overkill for an undergraduate-level study, but it certainly won’t be missing anything.

How long should my research paper be?

This depends entirely on your university’s specific requirements, so it’s best to check with them. We include generic word count ranges for each section within the template, but these are purely indicative.

What about the research proposal?

If you’re still working on your research proposal, we’ve got a template for that here .

We’ve also got loads of proposal-related guides and videos over on the Grad Coach blog .

How do I write a literature review?

We have a wealth of free resources on the Grad Coach Blog that unpack how to write a literature review from scratch. You can check out the literature review section of the blog here.

How do I create a research methodology?

We have a wealth of free resources on the Grad Coach Blog that unpack research methodology, both qualitative and quantitative. You can check out the methodology section of the blog here.

Can I share this research paper template with my friends/colleagues?

Yes, you’re welcome to share this template. If you want to post about it on your blog or social media, all we ask is that you reference this page as your source.

Can Grad Coach help me with my research paper?

Within the template, you’ll find plain-language explanations of each section, which should give you a fair amount of guidance. However, you’re also welcome to consider our private coaching services .

Request new password
Create a new account

An Introduction to Qualitative Research

Student resources, part 1 (chapters 1 – 5): foundations of qualitative research.

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

Knowledge Base
Research paper

Writing a Research Paper Introduction | Step-by-Step Guide

Published on September 24, 2022 by Jack Caulfield . Revised on March 27, 2023.

The introduction to a research paper is where you set up your topic and approach for the reader. It has several key goals:

Present your topic and get the reader interested
Provide background or summarize existing research
Position your own approach
Detail your specific research problem and problem statement
Give an overview of the paper’s structure

The introduction looks slightly different depending on whether your paper presents the results of original empirical research or constructs an argument by engaging with a variety of sources.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Step 1: introduce your topic, step 2: describe the background, step 3: establish your research problem, step 4: specify your objective(s), step 5: map out your paper, research paper introduction examples, frequently asked questions about the research paper introduction.

The first job of the introduction is to tell the reader what your topic is and why it’s interesting or important. This is generally accomplished with a strong opening hook.

The hook is a striking opening sentence that clearly conveys the relevance of your topic. Think of an interesting fact or statistic, a strong statement, a question, or a brief anecdote that will get the reader wondering about your topic.

For example, the following could be an effective hook for an argumentative paper about the environmental impact of cattle farming:

A more empirical paper investigating the relationship of Instagram use with body image issues in adolescent girls might use the following hook:

Don’t feel that your hook necessarily has to be deeply impressive or creative. Clarity and relevance are still more important than catchiness. The key thing is to guide the reader into your topic and situate your ideas.

Scribbr Citation Checker New

The AI-powered Citation Checker helps you avoid common mistakes such as:

Missing commas and periods
Incorrect usage of “et al.”
Ampersands (&) in narrative citations
Missing reference entries

This part of the introduction differs depending on what approach your paper is taking.

In a more argumentative paper, you’ll explore some general background here. In a more empirical paper, this is the place to review previous research and establish how yours fits in.

Argumentative paper: Background information

After you’ve caught your reader’s attention, specify a bit more, providing context and narrowing down your topic.

Provide only the most relevant background information. The introduction isn’t the place to get too in-depth; if more background is essential to your paper, it can appear in the body .

Empirical paper: Describing previous research

For a paper describing original research, you’ll instead provide an overview of the most relevant research that has already been conducted. This is a sort of miniature literature review —a sketch of the current state of research into your topic, boiled down to a few sentences.

This should be informed by genuine engagement with the literature. Your search can be less extensive than in a full literature review, but a clear sense of the relevant research is crucial to inform your own work.

Begin by establishing the kinds of research that have been done, and end with limitations or gaps in the research that you intend to respond to.

The next step is to clarify how your own research fits in and what problem it addresses.

Argumentative paper: Emphasize importance

In an argumentative research paper, you can simply state the problem you intend to discuss, and what is original or important about your argument.

Empirical paper: Relate to the literature

In an empirical research paper, try to lead into the problem on the basis of your discussion of the literature. Think in terms of these questions:

What research gap is your work intended to fill?
What limitations in previous work does it address?
What contribution to knowledge does it make?

You can make the connection between your problem and the existing research using phrases like the following.


Although has been studied in detail, insufficient attention has been paid to .	You will address a previously overlooked aspect of your topic.
The implications of study deserve to be explored further.	You will build on something suggested by a previous study, exploring it in greater depth.
It is generally assumed that . However, this paper suggests that …	You will depart from the consensus on your topic, establishing a new position.

Now you’ll get into the specifics of what you intend to find out or express in your research paper.

The way you frame your research objectives varies. An argumentative paper presents a thesis statement, while an empirical paper generally poses a research question (sometimes with a hypothesis as to the answer).

Argumentative paper: Thesis statement

The thesis statement expresses the position that the rest of the paper will present evidence and arguments for. It can be presented in one or two sentences, and should state your position clearly and directly, without providing specific arguments for it at this point.

Empirical paper: Research question and hypothesis

The research question is the question you want to answer in an empirical research paper.

Present your research question clearly and directly, with a minimum of discussion at this point. The rest of the paper will be taken up with discussing and investigating this question; here you just need to express it.

A research question can be framed either directly or indirectly.

This study set out to answer the following question: What effects does daily use of Instagram have on the prevalence of body image issues among adolescent girls?
We investigated the effects of daily Instagram use on the prevalence of body image issues among adolescent girls.

If your research involved testing hypotheses , these should be stated along with your research question. They are usually presented in the past tense, since the hypothesis will already have been tested by the time you are writing up your paper.

For example, the following hypothesis might respond to the research question above:

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

The final part of the introduction is often dedicated to a brief overview of the rest of the paper.

In a paper structured using the standard scientific “introduction, methods, results, discussion” format, this isn’t always necessary. But if your paper is structured in a less predictable way, it’s important to describe the shape of it for the reader.

If included, the overview should be concise, direct, and written in the present tense.

This paper will first discuss several examples of survey-based research into adolescent social media use, then will go on to …
This paper first discusses several examples of survey-based research into adolescent social media use, then goes on to …

Full examples of research paper introductions are shown in the tabs below: one for an argumentative paper, the other for an empirical paper.

Argumentative paper
Empirical paper

Are cows responsible for climate change? A recent study (RIVM, 2019) shows that cattle farmers account for two thirds of agricultural nitrogen emissions in the Netherlands. These emissions result from nitrogen in manure, which can degrade into ammonia and enter the atmosphere. The study’s calculations show that agriculture is the main source of nitrogen pollution, accounting for 46% of the country’s total emissions. By comparison, road traffic and households are responsible for 6.1% each, the industrial sector for 1%. While efforts are being made to mitigate these emissions, policymakers are reluctant to reckon with the scale of the problem. The approach presented here is a radical one, but commensurate with the issue. This paper argues that the Dutch government must stimulate and subsidize livestock farmers, especially cattle farmers, to transition to sustainable vegetable farming. It first establishes the inadequacy of current mitigation measures, then discusses the various advantages of the results proposed, and finally addresses potential objections to the plan on economic grounds.

The rise of social media has been accompanied by a sharp increase in the prevalence of body image issues among women and girls. This correlation has received significant academic attention: Various empirical studies have been conducted into Facebook usage among adolescent girls (Tiggermann & Slater, 2013; Meier & Gray, 2014). These studies have consistently found that the visual and interactive aspects of the platform have the greatest influence on body image issues. Despite this, highly visual social media (HVSM) such as Instagram have yet to be robustly researched. This paper sets out to address this research gap. We investigated the effects of daily Instagram use on the prevalence of body image issues among adolescent girls. It was hypothesized that daily Instagram use would be associated with an increase in body image concerns and a decrease in self-esteem ratings.

The introduction of a research paper includes several key elements:

A hook to catch the reader’s interest
Relevant background on the topic
Details of your research problem

and your problem statement

A thesis statement or research question
Sometimes an overview of the paper

Don’t feel that you have to write the introduction first. The introduction is often one of the last parts of the research paper you’ll write, along with the conclusion.

This is because it can be easier to introduce your paper once you’ve already written the body ; you may not have the clearest idea of your arguments until you’ve written them, and things can change during the writing process .

The way you present your research problem in your introduction varies depending on the nature of your research paper . A research paper that presents a sustained argument will usually encapsulate this argument in a thesis statement .

A research paper designed to present the results of empirical research tends to present a research question that it seeks to answer. It may also include a hypothesis —a prediction that will be confirmed or disproved by your research.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Caulfield, J. (2023, March 27). Writing a Research Paper Introduction | Step-by-Step Guide. Scribbr. Retrieved July 21, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/research-paper/research-paper-introduction/

Is this article helpful?

Jack Caulfield

Other students also liked, writing strong research questions | criteria & examples, writing a research paper conclusion | step-by-step guide, research paper format | apa, mla, & chicago templates, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

We're Hiring!
Help Center

Chapter 1 to 5

Related Papers

Kamaruzaman Jusoff

Alta Van der Merwe

Management Information Systems Quarterly

Michael Myers

Lucia Garcia

The starting point of a researcher's methodological choice within information systems is not so much a problem of how many methods we employ or if those are of a quantitative or a qualitative nature, but the ability to identify the philosophical and theoretical assumptions which leads to the choice of the appropriate methodology. In practice, despite the recognition of the virtues and the role of qualitative methods in information systems research, explicit institutional barriers and implicit functionalistic assumptions within the field have prevented much progress in their application.

Irja Shaanika

In research, problem is not necessarily something that is broken, but phenomenon which require further or an in-depth investigation for a fresh perspective. Thus, every research necessitates a problem statement, goal and objectives, which determines the data collection methods. The data type can be either quantitative or qualitative. According to Seidman (2012), depending on the objectives of the study, either the qualitative or quantitative research methods are selected for data collection. However, both methods can be selected, which is referred to as a mixed method (Barbour 2013; Silverman 2013). The choice of research methods is critical in that they influences the way in which data is collected and analysed. According to Myers and Avison (2002,p70), qualitative research methods were developed in the social sciences to enable researchers to study social and cultural phenomena. The primary purpose of qualitative research is to understand a phenomenon as it is seen by respondents ...

kay fielden

In this discussion paper multiple points of view, and effects and sources of bias in qualitative research results in organizational information systems are explored. A generic qualitative research process is traced starting from the ways in which researchers obtain permission to gather data in organizations. Multiple points of view in the research process, all of which may introduce bias into research results, are considered next. These include researcher/s, research institution, funding body, client organization, and individual participants. Finally bias effects from these multiple points of view are considered at analy- sis, interpretation and reporting of research results for organizational information systems. The position taken in this paper is that there is inevitable bias in qualitative research that may have many effects. The appropriateness of a 'scientific' approach to bias in qualitative research in organizational information systems is also considered.

Cristian Alexis Cota Bool

Lowella Viray

This study attempts to explain and explore the research methods in Information Systems (IS), while on the other it seeks to provide starting point for their use. In order to support the purpose of this study, a guide was written to introduce a toolkit of methods, explaining how to use them, showing how to analyze the data you obtained, and listing techniques to help you further understand each of the research methods used. More importantly, it aims to help novice or expert researchers to determine the appropriate methods they can apply in their research since the guide provided by this study created a thorough distinction between each research methods. The study employs quantitative research that applies basic descriptive qualitative study. In pursuit of this study’s aim, an existing literature and studies review was done. The literature and studies cited in this study, focus mainly in information systems research and research methods. The literature section reviews IS discipline in literature, IS way back from when it started, IS research in literature, issues concerning IS research and its future. To acquire further understanding about quantitative, qualitative and mixed-method in IS, the researcher sites six related studies to review. All the literature and studies reviewed in this section had showed how the nature of IS are constantly changing and most of the study suggests further advancement in IS research. Consequently, research methods like qualitative, quantitative and mixed-methods can make an important contribution to IS research and development. Thus, the work that described in this study plays an important role to help novice and experienced researchers to learn and review as reference, the use of research methods in evaluating Information System (IS) research. Since the work in this study aims to produce an instructional guide based from the curriculum, a selection of the required textbook for the guide was done. The researcher adopts Seif and Champine Criteria for Selecting Era 3, 21st Century Outcomes Curriculum Materials. Other criteria are also added like book review, cost-efficiency, availability, most recent copy, and content to produce neutral results. The assessment for other criteria like book review, cost-efficiency and availability was done adopting Upstill, Craswell and Hawking observations on their case study in Search and Searchability. The assessment was conducted by the researcher with four books about research methods and design employed and after conducting the assessment one book was selected as the primary textbook while the other three books serves as supplementary textbooks. The guide contains three major sections that explores and explains quantitative, qualitative and mixed-method approaches. The distinctions are based on different fundamental questions about methods used in IS research. Such are: (1) What is the method, (2) 2.When it should be used, (3) What do I need to consider, (4) How it should be used, (5) What is the output, (6) How should it be analyzed, and (7) What are the advantage and disadvantages. Within each distinctions includes the different quantitative methods used in information systems like surveys, experimentation particularly quasi-experiment, and statistical analysis. After the discussion, an example was given and list of readings to further enhance the learning on quantitative methods. The next major section of the guide is the qualitative method where it outlines the core qualitative research methods used in information systems research namely, open-ended and survey questions, participant observation, interviews, and document analysis. Example and further readings is included too. The last part of the guide is the discussion on mixed-method approach. The format of the section when it comes to questions is a little bit different compared to quantitative and qualitative sections because the third section is like the integration part of the two first-mentioned methods. In conclusion, the value of this study resides in the learning and knowledge it can provide for the novice or experienced researchers who are planning to conduct research in information systems or any related area of discipline. This guide reflects the wider aim of this study to support the need of further enhancement in Information Systems (IS) research and development. In this, we hope this guide goes in some way to help make the application rate of Information Systems (IS) research high. The topics within this guide are not fully comprehensive that you should follow-up at least some of the references suggested in further readings since the examples and focus is pointing to Information Systems (IS) research. In addition, the information contained in this study will not always appear in order that suits your perspective and circumstances. Due to this reasons, suggestions for future study were offered.

Shrief Zahran

Australasian Journal of Information Systems

Walter Fernández

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Journal of Management Information …

Hansen Elliot

kybele.escet.urjc.es

Sergio Guzman

Cândida Silva

Foundations and Trends® in Information Systems

Shadi Shuraida

Jolanta Kowal

Marlei Pozzebon

Mahmoud Moussa, PhD

Paul W Hyland

International Business & Economics Studies

Emmanuel Ikart

Juhani Iivari

MamHoon Kim

Information Systems Journal

Rudy Hirschheim

France Belanger

Information Systems and Qualitative Research

Eileen Trauth

Henrique Mello Rodrigues Freitas

TD: The Journal for Transdisciplinary Research in Southern Africa

Udo Averweg , Jan Kroeze , Jan H. Kroeze

Proceedings of the First International Conference on …

The Innovation, the User and the Use IT Model

firew habtamu

The Federal Register

The daily journal of the united states government.

Legal Status

This site displays a prototype of a “Web 2.0” version of the daily Federal Register. It is not an official legal edition of the Federal Register, and does not replace the official print version or the official electronic version on GPO’s govinfo.gov.

The documents posted on this site are XML renditions of published Federal Register documents. Each document posted on the site includes a link to the corresponding official PDF file on govinfo.gov. This prototype edition of the daily Federal Register on FederalRegister.gov will remain an unofficial informational resource until the Administrative Committee of the Federal Register (ACFR) issues a regulation granting it official legal status. For complete information about, and access to, our official publications and services, go to About the Federal Register on NARA's archives.gov.

The OFR/GPO partnership is committed to presenting accurate and reliable regulatory information on FederalRegister.gov with the objective of establishing the XML-based Federal Register as an ACFR-sanctioned publication in the future. While every effort has been made to ensure that the material on FederalRegister.gov is accurately displayed, consistent with the official SGML-based PDF version on govinfo.gov, those relying on it for legal research should verify their results against an official edition of the Federal Register. Until the ACFR grants it official status, the XML rendition of the daily Federal Register on FederalRegister.gov does not provide legal notice to the public or judicial notice to the courts.

Group Registration of Updates to a News Website

A Rule by the Copyright Office, Library of Congress on 07/22/2024

Document Details

Information about this document as published in the Federal Register .

Document Statistics

Published document.

This document has been published in the Federal Register . Use the PDF linked in the document sidebar for the official electronic format.

Enhanced Content - Table of Contents

This table of contents is a navigational tool, processed from the headings within the legal text of Federal Register documents. This repetition of headings to form internal navigation links has no substantive legal effect.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Supplementary information:, i. background, ii. final rule, a. eligibility requirements, 1. works that may be included in the group, i. constitutional challenge, ii. news website limitation, iii. website limitation, 2. scope of collective work, 3. one-month limitation, 4. authorship, ownership, and work made for hire requirements, 5. subjects of inquiry, i. permitted additional title information, ii. permitted archived urls, b. filing fee, c. deposit requirements, 1. “home page” requirement, i. timing of deposit capture, ii. “complete copy”, 2. site maps, 3. additional deposit suggestions, 4. other comments, e. application requirements, f. conclusion, list of subjects, 37 cfr part 201, 37 cfr part 202, final regulations, part 201—general provisions, part 202—preregistration and registration of claims to copyright, enhanced content - submit public comment.

This feature is not available for this document.

Enhanced Content - Read Public Comments

Enhanced content - sharing.

Email this document to a friend

Enhanced Content - Document Print View

Print this document

Enhanced Content - Document Tools

These tools are designed to help you understand the official document better and aid in comparing the online edition to the print edition.

These markup elements allow the user to see how the document follows the Document Drafting Handbook that agencies use to create their documents. These can be useful for better understanding how a document is structured but are not part of the published document itself.

Enhanced Content - Developer Tools

This document is available in the following developer friendly formats:.

JSON: Normalized attributes and metadata
XML: Original full text XML
MODS: Government Publishing Office metadata

More information and documentation can be found in our developer tools pages .

Official Content

View printed version (PDF)

This PDF is the current document as it appeared on Public Inspection on 07/19/2024 at 8:45 am. It was viewed 0 times while on Public Inspection.

If you are using public inspection listings for legal research, you should verify the contents of the documents against a final, official edition of the Federal Register. Only official editions of the Federal Register provide legal notice of publication to the public and judicial notice to the courts under 44 U.S.C. 1503 & 1507 . Learn more here .

U.S. Copyright Office, Library of Congress.

Final rule.

The U.S. Copyright Office is creating a new group registration for frequently updated news websites. This option will enable online news publishers to register a group of updates to a news website as a collective work with a deposit composed of identifying material representing sufficient portions of the work, rather than the complete contents of the website. The final rule is nearly identical to the provisions set forth in the January 2024 notice of proposed rulemaking, with one modification in response to public comments and one to reflect a technical change in the process for submitting these claims.

Effective July 22, 2024.

Rhea Efthimiadis, Assistant to the General Counsel, by email at [email protected] or by telephone at 202-707-8350.

The Copyright Act authorizes the Register of Copyrights to specify by regulation the administrative classes of works for the purpose of registration and the deposit required for each class. [ 1 ] In addition, Congress gave the Register the discretion to allow registration of groups of related works with one application and one filing fee. [ 2 ] This procedure is known as “group registration.” [ 3 ] Pursuant to this authority, the Register has issued several regulations permitting group registrations for certain types of works, including newspapers, newsletters and serials, unpublished works, unpublished and published photographs, contributions to periodicals, secure test items, works on an album of music, short online literary works, and database updates. [ 4 ]

This rulemaking expands the available group registration options because of several factors specifically impacting news websites. Along with receiving requests from online publishers, the Office observed the increase in news content offered online and the dynamic nature of such material. [ 5 ] It also reviewed stakeholder comments in prior proceedings that discussed the challenges associated with registering online news content, including those submitted in response to its 2022 Copyright Protections for Press Publishers report. [ 6 ] Finally, the Office acknowledged the deposit challenges associated with websites, particularly news websites, in its 2011 publication titled Priorities and Special Projects of the United States Copyright Office (October 2011-October 2013) . [ 7 ]

On January 3, 2024, the Office published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) to establish a new group registration option for frequently updated news websites. [ 8 ] The proposed rule would allow an applicant to register a news website as a collective work (including any individual component works it fully owns, such as literary works, photographs, and/or graphics) [ 9 ] with a deposit composed of identifying material, rather than the complete contents of the website. The proposed rule would also allow registration of the news website and any updates published within one calendar month, if the deposit evidences a sufficiently creative selection, coordination, or arrangement within each collective work to constitute a copyrightable compilation. [ 10 ] Each Start Printed Page 58992 collective work must have been created as a work made for hire, with the same person or entity named as both the author and copyright claimant. The proposed rule stated that applicants would be required to submit their claims through the online copyright registration system, using the application currently in use for a group of newspaper issues. [ 11 ]

The Office received twenty comments in response to the NPRM. [ 12 ] All but one [ 13 ] supported the Office's proposal to create the new group registration option, though the majority requested various modifications. Two commenters, however, expressly conditioned their support on substantive changes to the rule, which would substantially change its scope. [ 14 ] In general, commenters were interested in expanding eligibility for this option to a greater number of works and changing the deposit requirement. Proposals included revising the definition of “news website,” removing the work made for hire and author/claimant requirements, increasing the time limitation for updates to the news website, clarifying the “home page” deposit requirement, and asking the Office to confirm the scope of remedies for copyright infringement of a collective work. [ 15 ] Finally, one commenter encouraged the Office to “identify opportunities for improvement” and to remain “adaptive to technological changes.” [ 16 ]

Having reviewed and carefully considered each of the comments, the Office now issues a final rule that is nearly identical to the proposed rule, with one modification reflecting concerns raised by some commenters regarding the “home page” deposit requirement and one modification concerning the application form for this option. These modifications are discussed in more detail below. With respect to requests that we received to expand the scope of the rule, the Office will closely monitor how the new group option performs, including the number and complexity of the claims submitted, the amount of time needed to examine these claims, and the modest filing fee for this option. The Office remains open to revisiting these issues in the future based on this rule's performance.

In the NPRM, the Office proposed to limit this group registration option to updates to a “news website,” defined as “a website that is designed to be a primary source of written information on current events, either local, national, or international in scope, that contains a broad range of news on all subjects and activities and is not limited to any specific subject matter.” As described in the NPRM, the proposed rule stems from the rapid development and predominance of news websites over print newspapers, [ 17 ] and requests from news publishers for a feasible way to register “newspaper websites” that are “updated frequently.” [ 18 ] Thus, the proposed rule is an extension of the existing group newspaper option that has been available for decades. [ 19 ] Consistent with the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices, the proposed rule defines a “website” as “a web page or set of interconnected web pages that are accessed using a uniform resource locator (“URL”) organized under a particular domain name.” A number of commenters encouraged the Office to expand the type of works eligible under the rule and recommended revisions to both definitions.

Before turning to the requests to expand the rule, the Office addresses the argument made by a small number of commenters that the proposed group registration option would violate the First Amendment by limiting the option to a particular type of work. In a joint comment, NWU, NPPA, and NASW stated that restricting the option to “news” websites constitutes “[c]ontent-based discrimination,” which they considered “[c]onstitutionally suspect and subject to strict scrutiny” that the rule “cannot meet.” [ 20 ] In support of this argument, they cited Arkansas Writers Project v. Ragland, 481 U.S. 221 (1987), which reviewed a state sales tax scheme that taxed general interest magazines, but exempted newspapers and religious, professional trade, and sports journals. Because Arkansas “advanced no compelling justification for selective, content-based taxation of certain magazines,” the Supreme Court held the tax scheme invalid under the First Amendment. [ 21 ] Analogizing the tax scheme in Arkansas Writers Project to the proposed registration option, NWU, NPPA, and NASW argued that the exclusion of any web content that does not meet the “news website” definition is unconstitutional. [ 22 ]

Aligned with NWU, NPPA, and NASW, another commenter, Gordon Firemark, contended that, by limiting the group option to updates to news websites, the proposed rule “excludes other types of content from [its] benefits” and denies content creators “relief from the burdens of the current system.” [ 23 ] He argued that recent Supreme Court precedent concerning trademark registration requires a content-neutral approach. [ 24 ]

The Office disagrees with these arguments. It is correct that the Supreme Court has held that content-based laws—laws restricting or compelling Start Printed Page 58993 speech based on its communicative content—are presumptively unconstitutional, [ 25 ] and subject to strict scrutiny, under which the government must show that the law is the “least restrictive means” of advancing a “compelling” governmental interest. [ 26 ] A regulation can be content-based “on its face,” if its text applies to speech based on the subject matter, topic, or viewpoint of that speech. It can also be content-based if it has a discriminatory purpose that “cannot be justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech” or was “adopted by the government because of disagreement with the message” conveyed. [ 27 ] However, a regulation that places “a differential burden on speakers is insufficient by itself to raise First Amendment concerns.” [ 28 ] The tax scheme in Arkansas Writers Project was found to violate these principles by being directed at particular subjects, thus targeting a small group within the press. [ 29 ] That is not the case here.

The Office's proposed group registration option is not analogous to the unconstitutional tax statute in Arkansas Writers Project for multiple reasons. First, the option does not restrict or compel speech based on its communicative content. Nor does it favor or disfavor particular topics or subjects, or exclude a small group of the press. [ 30 ] Instead the option is available for updates to news websites that contain a broad range of topics regardless of the content of the speech involved.

Second, the registration option is viewpoint neutral and operates not as a restriction on speech, but as a condition for qualifying for one of many options available to register copyrights, including online websites and other publications. The Standard Application is available to any type of author for any type of work within the statutory categories. [ 31 ] Group registration options are discretionary accommodations offered by the Office in a number of areas. Currently, the Office administers ten group options covering unpublished works, short online literary works, works on an album of music, serials, newspapers, newsletters, contributions to periodicals, published and unpublished photographs, automated databases, and secure test items. [ 32 ] For online publications, group serials and group newsletters are other registration options for publications that fall outside of the “newspaper” or “news website” definitions.

The Supreme Court's recent ruling in a case involving trademark regulations supports the Office's view. There the Court reviewed a rule of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) barring the registration of trademarks that use the names of particular living individuals without their written consent. [ 33 ] The Court held that this bar, though content-based, is viewpoint neutral and does not violate the First Amendment. [ 34 ] The Court noted that while its precedents “distinguish between content-based and content-neutral regulations of speech,” [ 35 ] they further distinguish “a particularly `egregious form of content discrimination'—viewpoint discrimination,” which targets not merely a subject matter, “but particular views taken by speakers on a subject.” [ 36 ] The Court identified “[s]everal features of trademark [law]” that “counsel against a per se rule of applying heightened scrutiny to viewpoint-neutral, but content-based trademark regulations.” Most notably, it found that “trademark rights have always coexisted with the First Amendment, despite the fact that trademark protection necessarily requires content-based distinctions.” [ 37 ] Accordingly, the Court held that USPTO's “content-based, but viewpoint-neutral, trademark restriction [ ] is compatible with the First Amendment.” [ 38 ]

Similarly, copyright registration, and the broad administrative classification authority Congress granted to the Register, necessarily requires content-based distinctions. Indeed, since its passage in 1976, the Copyright Act has authorized the Register “to specify by regulation the administrative classes into which works are to be placed for purposes of deposit and registration” and to permit “ for particular classes, the deposit of identifying material instead of copies or phonorecords, the deposit of only one copy or phonorecord where two would normally be required, or a single registration for a group of related works.” [ 39 ] Like the USPTO's name bar, these administrative distinctions are not based on the particular views taken by authors and have always coexisted with the First Amendment. The addition of an administrative classification for this new group registration option, which adopts near-identical criteria for determining “news” content to that of the existing group option for newspapers, is “a matter of policy and discretion” [ 40 ] fully compatible with the First Amendment.

Further, unlike the viewpoint-based trademark provisions held unconstitutional for barring registration of scandalous or disparaging marks, [ 41 ] the Office's viewpoint-neutral administrative classification does not bar registration for non-news content or websites. Quite the opposite: to increase participation in the registration system, the Office has created several group options for the registration of works that are published online. [ 42 ] The Standard Application also remains available to any type of author for any type of work within the statutory categories. This rule does not prevent anyone's ability to register non-news works.

Multiple commenters urged the Office to expand the rule's definition of “news website” by removing the condition that the website must contain news on all subjects and activities. [ 43 ] In encouraging Start Printed Page 58994 the Office “not to exclude . . . specialized websites,” the ABA-IPL noted that the “proposed rule may provide especially meaningful benefit to smaller news websites—including those that focus on certain `specific subject matter.' ” [ 44 ] HBP argued that “websites, like HBR.org, that focus on a particular area of news . . . still face the same registration problems afflicting all news websites.” [ 45 ] The Authors Guild also expressed concern that the rule would exclude more specialized news publications, such as those that focus on political news. It argued that “these publications clearly qualify as news websites under any ordinary understanding of that term.” [ 46 ] Relatedly, commenters claimed that content restrictions “put[ ] examiners in an untenable position of deciding what is or is not `news.' ” [ 47 ] Finally, four commenters asked the Office to abandon the “news website” definition and extend the group option “to any periodically-produced content distributed through the internet.” [ 48 ]

After considering this request and in the interest of implementing this final rule as quickly as possible, the Office declines to revise the definition at this time. As an extension of the newspaper group option, the “news website” definition is modeled on the Office's longstanding regulation defining a “newspaper” as a publication that is “mainly designed to be a primary source of written information on current events, either local, national, or international in scope,” that “contains a broad range of news on all subjects and activities and is not limited to any specific subject matter.” [ 49 ] This definition is very broad and it is intended to “make any newspaper eligible for a group registration.” [ 50 ] It is also intended to distinguish a “newspaper” from a “newsletter,” which is defined elsewhere in the regulations as a publication that contains “news or information that is chiefly of interest to a special group, such as trade and professional associations, colleges, schools, or churches.” [ 51 ]

Under this definition, newspapers are aimed at any member of the general public who may be interested in newsworthy information or events that are reported on a given day. [ 52 ] By applying a similar definition to websites, the final rule recognizes that “news websites” are also intended to have universal appeal.

This definition would encompass news websites that cover current events and provide information on diverse topics, including some political websites like those identified in the Authors Guild's comment. [ 53 ] Although these sites focus primarily on issues involving politics and events with political implications, they do not limit their coverage to a particular subject matter nor are they directed at narrow or discrete groups of readers. [ 54 ]

The Office also disagrees with commenters that the “news website” eligibility requirement places a burden on examiners. Indeed, the definitions for “news website” and “newspaper” are similar, in part, to enable consistent application of both rules. Examiners are accustomed to assessing eligibility based on this definition.

However, if the definition proves too rigid or unworkable, the Office is willing to revisit this issue based on its experience in administering this rule. Importantly, however, this new group option is not intended to extend to the websites of all serials or newsletters, which in print or ePrint form have the benefit of separate group registration options. [ 55 ]

The Office received requests to expand the rule beyond websites. Commenters recommended that the proposed rule be amended to include mobile applications (“apps”) in the definition of “website.” [ 56 ] They argued that “[m]any news publishers encourage users to access content on an app rather than a website.” [ 57 ]

The Office declines to amend the definition. It considers an app to be “a computer program that is used directly or indirectly in a computer or handheld electronic device.” [ 58 ] The Office has a procedure for registering the underlying code that operates the app. [ 59 ] To the extent that news publishers seek to register the works published on the app, a registration for a newspaper or a news website would protect those works if they contain the same content.

AIPLA encouraged the Office to revise the definition of “website” to clarify that a website is not limited to content accessed using a single domain name. [ 60 ] It explained that “web pages are composed of various elements, like text, images, and videos” that “might be hosted on a different server than the one hosting the main web page for reasons such as efficiency, speed, and cost.” [ 61 ] The Office appreciates this distinction but declines to revise the definition. To qualify for this option, each collective work in the group must be published under one particular domain name. For registration purposes, the Office does not assess eligibility based on where component digital works may be stored. The Office believes the “particular web page” requirement is necessary to prevent applicants from using the option to register collective works published under different domain names on the same application, which would make it difficult to identify the website that is covered by the registration. Therefore, the final rule retains the definition proposed in the NPRM.

The proposed rule provides that claims registered under this option will be limited to the collective work authorship based on the selection, coordination, and/or arrangement of the individual component works, and that all parts of the collective work will constitute one work for purposes of 17 U.S.C. 504(c)(1) . [ 62 ] Additionally, the Start Printed Page 58995 Office made clear that the registration will also cover the individual contributions contained within the collective work if they are fully owned by the copyright claimant and were first published in that work.

NPR asked the Office to confirm that “the scope of the collective work will explicitly include all copyrightable contributions made by the claimant, not just textual works.” [ 63 ] As noted above, a “news website” is defined as “a website that is designed to be a primary source of written information.” [ 64 ] If the collective work contains individual contributions that are fully owned by the copyright claimant and were first published in the work, then the registration will cover those contributions, so long as they are copyrightable subject matter. However, a component work “that is perceptible to the user only by downloading or separately purchasing that particular work is not considered part of the website for registration purposes and must be registered separately.” [ 65 ] Additionally, any “externally linked content [ i.e., content residing on another website] is not considered part of the website's content for registration purposes.” [ 66 ]

HBP recommended that the Office permit applicants to disclaim content that is licensed and not owned by the applicant. As with group newspapers, the Office does not see the need for a limitation of claim for news websites, because the proposed rule expressly states that “[e]ach update to the website must be [an original] collective work.” A registration issued by the Office pursuant to this rule will only cover the new contributions owned by the copyright claimant. Consistent with any collective work registration, any articles, photos, or other contributions included in the collective work that were previously published, previously registered, owned by another party, or in the public domain are automatically excluded from the claim. As a practical matter, therefore, a disclaimer to expressly exclude material in the application is unnecessary.

Port. Prerogative Club asked the Office to “[c]larify whether updates to numerical information, such as prices, volumes, retweets, or other metrics, qualify as registrable under the rule, and whether the Office has changed its policy on the registrability of short phrases and headlines.” The Office states that its longstanding regulation denying protection for words and short phrases has not changed. [ 67 ] Regarding “prices, volumes, retweets, or other metrics,” it is unclear whether the commenter is referring to individual works of authorship, or whether these items appear in a compilation. Individual numbers and short phrases are not copyrightable. However, a copyrightable compilation of these items may be registrable.

The proposed rule permits an applicant to include updates published on the same website within the same calendar month. Three commenters urged the Office to remove the limitation, arguing that it is too “onerous.” [ 68 ] NPR recommended that the Office allow for the option to cover “three months, or six months, or a calendar year” to “reduce registration costs.” [ 69 ] Noting that “attorneys' fees and statutory damages can be awarded as long as copyright is registered within three months of first publication,” NWU, NPPA, and NASW requested that the rule be amended to allow registration of updates published “during any specified three-month period.” [ 70 ]

At this time, given administrative capabilities, the Office cannot expand the option to cover more than one month of updates. As the NPRM explained, to deliver the option promptly, and to minimize development time, the Office is adapting the existing group application for newspapers, which is used to register up to one month of newspaper issues and contains technical validations that prevent applicants from entering publication dates that are more than one month apart. Changing the limit would require additional modifications to the application and delay implementation of the final rule. Further, the Office seeks an appropriate balance between the interests of copyright owners and the administrative burden to the Office. Based on the modest fee set for this option, some limit on the number of works included in each claim is necessary. The Office will reassess whether the limit can be increased after it has gained sufficient experience administering the rule.

Under the proposed rule, to be eligible for the option, each collective work in the group must have been created as a work made for hire, with the same person or entity named as the author and copyright claimant. Multiple commenters questioned this requirement. [ 71 ] The Authors Guild argued that the work made for hire requirement “arbitrarily and unfairly confines the benefit of the rule to corporate entities even where other creators are producing substantially the same type of content.” [ 72 ] While they recognized that this requirement reflects practical and technical limitations, NMA and AIPLA noted that “there does not seem to be a fundamental reason for such a limitation in principle, and in many business cases, the work may be fully owned by the publisher, or obtained via assignment or operation of law.” [ 73 ]

The Office acknowledges that the work made for hire requirement may not reflect every business case of ownership. However, this requirement streamlines the registration procedures, which, as noted above, will adapt the existing group application option for newspapers. Under that option, the same person or entity must be named as the author and copyright claimant, and each issue must be a work made for hire. The Office retains the same requirements for the news websites option to minimize the need for additional development time that would otherwise be required. Start Printed Page 58996

Additionally, under general Copyright Office practice, if the author and claimant are not the same person, the applicant is statutorily required to provide a transfer statement explaining how the claimant acquired all of the rights initially belonging to the author. [ 74 ] If an applicant names a third party as the copyright claimant, but fails to provide a transfer statement, then the Office must correspond to determine whether the claimant actually owns all of the exclusive rights in the works, which delays the registration decision. The corresponding additional time and costs that the Office would incur are inconsistent with the reduced fee for examination of multiple collective works.

Moreover, imposing a work made for hire limitation is consistent with the goal of this rulemaking, which is to address obstacles to registering online news content produced by news publishers, who often also publish newspapers. Based on its experience with the existing group newspaper registrations, the Office expects that this requirement will produce an optimal public record, while reducing the administrative burden that these claims impose. The final rule accordingly retains the work made for hire requirement. Applicants who do not qualify for the option may still register their works individually using the Standard Application.

The Office invited public comments on whether it should give applicants the opportunity to provide additional information, such as individual article or photograph titles, as part of this group registration option. Commenters expressed support for the implementation of an opportunity to include granular information concerning individual component works at the applicant's discretion. [ 75 ] The Authors Guild noted that “in the event an individual article is the subject of a later infringement action, the applicant may need to rely on its own recordkeeping to establish that the article was on the website during the period covered by the registration.” [ 76 ] It concluded, “[t]he listing of individual titles or other information on the application may provide additional evidence relevant to that showing.” [ 77 ] The Office agrees and will provide instructions on its website explaining how applicants may submit additional information regarding component works on an optional basis. [ 78 ]

The Office also invited public comments on the availability and effectiveness of technological solutions for saving or archiving websites that could assist or supplement news websites' recordkeeping efforts while also informing the public of the contents of the website and/or any updates registered. The Office suggested that applicants may provide in the “Note to Office” field additional information regarding the contents of the work, such as archived URLs that capture the complete content of each collective work submitted for registration. The Copyright Alliance expressed support for this suggestion, provided that doing so is voluntary. [ 79 ] Therefore the Office encourages applicants to submit archived URLs in the “Note to Office” field on a voluntary basis.

The NPRM provided that the filing fee for this option will be $95, the same fee that currently applies to a claim in a group of newspapers. It noted that the Office believes it is reasonable to charge the same fee as for the group newspaper option, given the similarities in expected workflow associated with examining these claims. The NMA expressed support for this modest fee, describing it as “reasonable and unarbitrary.” [ 80 ] The final rule establishes this fee.

The NPRM proposed that for each collective work submitted under this group registration option, applicants must “submit a deposit that is sufficient to identify some of the updates that were made to the website.” [ 81 ] The Office specified that “applicants will need to submit separate PDF files that each contain a complete copy of the home page for the site. Each PDF must show how the home page appeared at a specific point during each day of the calendar month when new updates were published on the site.” [ 82 ] Additionally, the NPRM required that each deposit demonstrate “that the home page contains a sufficient degree of selection, coordination, and/or arrangement to be registered as a collective work.” [ 83 ] Several commenters requested that the Office consider different deposit requirements, though commenters varied on the specific changes they requested or discussed deposits generally. The Office addresses each suggested change below.

After considering NMA's request to resolve a purported ambiguity in the proposed rule regarding the time of day for daily deposits of home pages, the Office is clarifying the time period for capturing deposits. [ 84 ] The language within section (m)(6)(i) requiring “[e]ach PDF [to] show how the home page appeared at a specific point during each day of the calendar month” does not require applicants to capture PDFs of home pages at the same exact time every day. [ 85 ] Instead, PDFs of home pages must show how the home page appeared at some point during each day, in addition to satisfying other applicable deposit requirements.

Three commenters specifically requested that the Office expand the identifying material it will accept to encompass more than “a complete copy of the home page for the site.” [ 86 ] The NAB stated that “the Office should amend the deposit requirements proposed in § 202.4(m)(6)(i) to allow for the submission of a copy of identifying material in lieu of a complete copy of the home page.” [ 87 ] It explained that “many news websites utilize an `infinite scroll' feature that automatically and continuously loads more content as users scroll down the web page” making Start Printed Page 58997 it “technologically impossible for an applicant to satisfy the deposit requirement of providing a PDF of the home page in its entirety.” [ 88 ] Copyright Alliance echoed this sentiment stating “a user is able to continuously reveal additional content on the web page without having to leave the page to view the content on a separate web page. For such web pages, it is not possible to capture an `entire copy' of the page since the user can endlessly reveal the contents of the page.” [ 89 ] Similarly, NMA noted that, due to the difficulties posed by “extensive or close-to-infinite scroll,” the Office should clarify that an applicant could meet the deposit requirement “as long as [the PDF] captures the masthead, URL identifier, and a defined minimum amount of the homepage (which in most cases will encompass all of it), including representative updates from the previous deposit copy.” [ 90 ]

After considering these comments, the Office concludes that the requested modification to the proposed rule is reasonable and supports the overall goal of this group registration option. Accordingly, the final rule includes an alternative to the “complete copy of the home page” requirement where submitting a complete copy is not feasible due to the size or continuous nature of the home page. In such circumstances, applicants may “submit the first 25 pages of the home page that demonstrates updates from the previous deposit copy.” This portion of the rule is designed to decrease the burden on applicants that wish to utilize this group registration option, but are unable to satisfy the “complete copy” deposit requirement. The Office believes that this modification will facilitate registration, while also ensuring that the deposit provided is sufficient to identify the work and the copyrightable authorship covered by the registration. Applicants utilizing this provision are advised that any deposit should only include updates within the time period covered by the application. In the event that an applicant includes updates outside the time period, they would be considered previously published material, and would not be covered by the registration. Additionally, as stated in the NPRM, if a copyright owner is required to prove to a court or an alleged infringer “the specific contents of a website at any particular point in time, it will need to preserve and maintain its own copy of the site and rely on its own recordkeeping to provide such proof.” [ 91 ]

NWU, NPPA, and NASW disagreed that a home page would constitute sufficient identifying material for registration. [ 92 ] They asserted that “requiring deposit of PDFs of images of the home page is disconnected from the reality that updates aren't necessarily visible on the `home page' of a website.” [ 93 ] While “[u]pdates appear on the home pages of some—but far from all—newspaper publishers' websites,” the home pages of other websites, such as self-published or references websites, are “mostly or entirely static,” with updates occurring on other “inside” pages that are not indexed or referenced on the home page. [ 94 ] Instead, NWU, NPPA, and NASW suggested that the Office accept a “sitemap page or set of sitemap pages,” “as the way to indicate which pages of a site have most recently been added or modified, and when.” [ 95 ] Sitemaps, they alleged, “are structured, standardized, machine-readable, and human-readable” and “all updates in a given period can be identified by a single sitemap or set of sitemaps,” which the Office could “use[ ] immediately.” [ 96 ]

The Office declines to permit applicants to submit a sitemap page or a set of sitemap pages as identifying material for several reasons. First, it is not clear that sitemaps themselves provide information that would allow an examiner to determine whether each collective work within the group application contains sufficient creative selection, coordination, or arrangement. [ 97 ] Second, sitemaps do not satisfy the public notice function that deposits serve, as they do not display the work requested for registration and are not sufficient to identify the updates made to the websites. [ 98 ] As explained in the NPRM, any deposit requirement must “satisfy the public notice function of capturing, and making available for public inspection, a deposit that should be sufficient to identify” the work covered by the application. [ 99 ] Lastly, accepting sitemap deposits would likely not aid in efficiency as suggested. [ 100 ] If an examiner receives a sitemap, they would likely need to correspond with the applicant to determine what exactly the application covers. For these reasons, the Office declines to modify the final rule to include sitemaps.

Commenters also suggested that the Office accept deposits comprised of annotated Portable Document Formats (“PDFs”) [ 101 ] or PDF deposits of apps. [ 102 ] Specifically, one commenter encouraged the Office to consider accepting annotated PDFs of a single web page, where “[a]nnotations could circle content that is not included in registration, such as licensed content as compared to original news organization content” or “content already registered.” [ 103 ] Other commenters, including Copyright Alliance, NMA, and the Authors Guild, proposed that the Office should accept PDFs that “contain a complete copy of the home page of . . . mobile application[s]. ” [ 104 ] Start Printed Page 58998 They discussed the ease with which applicants could submit app PDFs [ 105 ] and how PDFs address record-keeping concerns and “concerns over whether the collective works stem from the same source.” [ 106 ] Copyright Alliance and NMA also suggested that the absence of a uniform resource locator (“URL”) from app PDFs, a requirement of the proposed rule, is immaterial because apps “generally prominently feature the logo or other visible identifier of the publication in question” and news content on an app is “organized and contained,” similar to a website. [ 107 ] NMA further recommended that because the USPTO has “long accepted” app screenshots for trademark specimens, subject to certain requirements, the Office should adopt similar standards. [ 108 ]

The Office declines to permit parties to submit annotated PDFs of a single web page. As discussed above, each update will be registered as a collective work. For that reason, there is no need to identify component works that are not owned by the claimant or component works that have been previously registered, because as a general rule, a registration for a collective work does not cover this type of preexisting material.

The Office also declines to accept PDF deposits of apps to represent a news website. Initially, it is unclear whether the selection, coordination, and/or arrangement of material encompassed within the PDFs would be identical to the selection, coordination, and/or arrangement of a website's home page, regardless of whether the same content is present on both. [ 109 ] Further, the Office continues to believe that the rule's deposit regulations offer flexibility, while still satisfying the public notice function of deposits. The regulation will permit applicants to submit a complete copy of the website's home page, and when that is not feasible due to the size or continuous nature of the home page, applicants may submit the first 25 pages of the home page demonstrating updates from the previous deposit copy.

Commenters made additional suggestions and remarks on the proposed rule's deposit requirements and the Office's deposit requirements generally. With respect to the Office's modernization efforts, ABA-IPL suggested that the Office consider generally expanding the “format of deposit copies accepted” and regularly reviewing and updating registration regulations. [ 110 ] ABA-IPL stated that the Office should accept deposits in .xml format for regularly updated news content, such as content covered under the proposed rule, “as [.xml] and similar formats are widely used in digital content creation and management.” [ 111 ] The University of Michigan Library (“UM-Library”) expressed concerns with the proposed regulations regarding fixation and preservation. [ 112 ] They asserted that the proposed deposit requirements are not “sufficiently fixed for copyright purposes” and that if deposit “materials are not collected and preserved—even as facsimiles or through emulation—then as a practical matter there will be a huge gap in the possibilities for research, scholarship, and understanding.”

The Office is sympathetic to commenters' desires to expand the file formats accepted for deposit purposes generally, including regularly updated news content. As stated above and in the NPRM, the current registration system only accepts certain file types. [ 113 ] The Office anticipates revisiting its acceptable file formats in connection with ongoing improvements to its technology systems. Until then, the Office continues to actively engage in research about the suitability of other file formats. [ 114 ]

The Office appreciates the fixation and preservation concerns about the proposed deposit requirements, codified in the final rule. It continues to believe, however, that the deposit requirements are sufficient. As stated above and in the NPRM, the Copyright Act imbues the Register with broad authority to accept identifying material in lieu of complete copies or phonorecords [ 115 ] where such copies or phonorecords are “bulky, unwieldly, easily broken, or otherwise impractical to [serve] . . . as records identifying the work[s] registered.” [ 116 ] This provision, and its legislative history, give the Register flexibility in determining the deposit requirements when identifying material is involved, and the Office has used this authority in the past. Within this rulemaking, the Office believes the proposed deposit requirements are appropriate, and less burdensome than general deposit requirements for websites. [ 117 ] As the Office discussed in the NPRM, the proposed deposit requirements satisfy the public notice function and still require that deposits sufficiently “identify some of the updates” made to the website. [ 118 ] Any fixation concerns may be alleviated by the fact that the proposed regulations are merely registration deposit requirements. They do not relieve a registrant from complying with other legal obligations, such as the obligation to maintain and preserve copies of a website, including its content, in the context of an infringement claim. [ 119 ]

The NPRM explained that the Office planned to use one of its existing group registration application forms to process these claims. Specifically, it said applicants would be required to submit their claims through the current electronic registration system using the application designated for a group of newspaper issues. None of the commenters objected to this proposal.

After consulting with the Library of Congress's Office of the Chief Information Officer, the Office determined that it would be feasible to create a separate application for news website claims that will be cloned from the corresponding application that is used for group newspaper claims. This should simplify the registration process for both applicants and Office staff by preventing potential confusion between claims involving newspaper issues and claims involving updates to a news website. The cloned application will include the same technical specifications and system validations that appear in the group newspaper Start Printed Page 58999 form. The final rule has been modified to reflect this change. Information and instructions on how to submit these claims will be provided in the application itself and on a dedicated page on the Office's website.

Based on requests from affected parties for the expeditious implementation of the rule [ 120 ] and the absence of arguments supporting a delay, the Office finds that good cause exists to issue these regulations as a final rule with an immediate effective date. Commenters have presented a record supporting “the demonstrable urgency of the conditions [the rule is] designed to correct.” [ 121 ] Finally, the registration option authorized by the final rule will be available to registrants at or near the rule's publication date.

General provisions
Copyright claims, preregistration and registration

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Copyright Office amends 37 CFR parts 201 and 202 as follows:

1. The authority citation for part 201 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 17 U.S.C. 702 .

Section 201.10 also issued under 17 U.S.C. 304 .

2. In § 201.3, amend table 1 to paragraph (c) by redesignating paragraphs (c)(12) through (c)(29) as (c)(13) through (c)(30), respectively, and adding a new paragraph (c)(12) to read as follows:

Table 1 to Paragraph ( c )

Registration, recordation, and related servicesFees ($) * * * * * * *(12) Registration of a group of updates to a news website95 * * * * * * *

3. The authority citation for part 202 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 17 U.S.C. 408(f) , 702 .

4. Amend § 202.4 by adding paragraph (m) and revising paragraph (r) to read as follows:

(m) Group registration of updates to a news website. Pursuant to the authority granted by 17 U.S.C. 408(c)(1) , the Register of Copyrights has determined that a group of updates to a news website may be registered with one application, the required deposit, and the filing fee required by § 201.3 of this chapter, with each update being registered as a collective work, if the following conditions are met:

(1) Definitions. For the purposes of this paragraph (m):

(i) News website means a website that is designed to be a primary source of written information on current events, either local, national, or international in scope, that contains a broad range of news on all subjects and activities and is not limited to any specific subject matter.

(ii) Website means a web page or set of interconnected web pages that are accessed using a uniform resource locator (“URL”) organized under a particular domain name.

(2) Requirements for collective works. Each update to the website must be a collective work, and the claim must be limited to the collective work.

(3) Author and claimant. Each collective work in the group must be a work made for hire, and the author and claimant for each collective work must be the same person or organization.

(4) Updates must be from one news website; time period covered. Each collective work in the group must be published on the same news website under the same URL, and they must be published within the same calendar month. The applicant must identify the earliest and latest date that the collective works were published.

(5) Application. The applicant must complete and submit the online application designated for a group of updates to a news website. The application may be submitted by any of the parties listed in § 202.3(c)(1).

(6) Deposit. (i) For each collective work within the group, the applicant must submit identifying material from the news website. For these purposes “ identifying material ” shall mean separate Portable Document Format (PDF) files that each contain a complete copy of the home page of the website. In case a complete copy is technically unfeasible due to the size or continuous nature of the home page, the applicant may submit the first 25 pages of the home page that demonstrates updates from the previous deposit copy. Each PDF must show how the home page appeared at a specific point during each day of the calendar month when new updates were published on the website.

(ii) The identifying material must demonstrate that the home page contains sufficient selection, coordination, and arrangement authorship to be registered as a collective work If the home page does not demonstrate sufficient compilation authorship, the deposit should include as many additional pages as necessary to demonstrate that the updates to the news website can be registered as a collective work.

(iii) The identifying material must be submitted through the electronic registration system, and all of the Start Printed Page 59000 identifying material that was published on a particular date must be contained in the same electronic file. The files must be submitted in PDF format, they must be assembled in an orderly form, and each file must be uploaded to the electronic registration system as an individual electronic file ( i.e., not .zip files). The file size for each uploaded file must not exceed 500 megabytes, but files may be compressed to comply with this requirement.

(7) Special relief. In an exceptional case, the Copyright Office may waive the online filing requirement set forth in paragraph (m)(5) of this section or may grant special relief from the deposit requirement under § 202.20(d) of this chapter, subject to such conditions as the Associate Register of Copyrights and Director of the Office of Registration Policy and Practice may impose on the applicant.

(r) The scope of a group registration. When the Office issues a group registration under paragraph (d), (e), or (f) of this section, the registration covers each issue in the group and each issue is registered as a separate work or a separate collective work (as the case may be). When the Office issues a group registration under paragraphs (c), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), or (o) of this section, the registration covers each work in the group and each work is registered as a separate work. When the Office issues a group registration under paragraph (m) of this section, the registration covers each update in the group, and each update is registered as a separate collective work. For purposes of registration, the group as a whole is not considered a compilation, a collective work, or a derivative work under section 101, 103(b), or 504(c)(1) of title 17 of the United States Code.

Shira Perlmutter,

Approved by:

Carla D. Hayden,

Librarian of Congress.

1. 17 U.S.C. 408(c)(1) .

2. Id.

3. See generally 37 CFR 202.3(b)(5) , 202.4 .

4. Id. at 202.3(b)(5), 202.4(c)-(k), (o).

5. See 89 FR 311 , 311-12 (Jan. 3, 2024).

6. U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright Protection for Press Publishers (June 2022), https://copyright.gov/policy/publishersprotections/202206-Publishers-Protections-Study.pdf .

7. See 89 FR 311 , 312 .

8. Id. at 311. The final rule defines a “news website” as “a website that is designed to be a primary source of written information on current events, either local, national, or international in scope, that contains a broad range of news on all subjects and activities and is not limited to any specific subject matter.” 37 CFR 202.4(m)(1)(i) .

9. Because the Office will not examine each component work within the collective work, the copyright claimant bears the burden of proving that it owns the individual component works claimed in the submission.

10. A “collective work” is a type of compilation. See 17 U.S.C. 101 . A “compilation” is “a work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship.” Id.

11. As noted in the NPRM, “in appropriate circumstances, the Office may waive the online filing requirement, subject to the conditions the Associate Register of Copyrights and Director of the Office of Registration Policy and Practice may impose.” 89 FR 311 , 316 n.55.

12. The Office also received a letter from several organizations reflecting their collective support for finalizing the rulemaking in a timely manner and in-line edits to the Office's proposed regulatory language. Letter from Ass'n of Am. Publishers et al. to Suzanne Wilson, Gen. Counsel and Assoc. Register of Copyrights (Apr. 4, 2024), https://www.copyright.gov/rulemaking/newswebsite/Association-of-American-Publishers-et-al%E2%80%93Letter-to-Copyright-Office.pdf .

13. See Am. Ass'n of Independent Music, Ass'n of Am. Publishers, Inc, and Recording Industry Ass'n of Am., Inc. (“A2IM, AAP, & RIAA”) Comment at 2 (“Commenters express no position on the primary focus of the NPRM—whether the Office should create a new group registration option for frequently updated news websites—or on the details of how such an option should be implemented.”).

14. See generally Nat'l Writers Union, Nat'l Press Photographers Ass'n, Nat'l Ass'n of Sci. Writers (“NWU, NPPA, & NASW”) Comment; Gordon Firemark 2 Comment.

15. A handful of commenters also proposed that the Office should adopt the NPRM immediately, as an interim rule. See, e.g., Copyright All. Comment at 11; Nat'l Pub. Radio (“NPR”) Comment at 3-5; News Media All. (“NMA”) Comment at 2.

16. Am. Bar Ass'n Section of Intell. Prop. L. (“ABA-IPL”) Comment at 4.

17. 89 FR at 311-12 (noting that “[m]ore than eight in ten Americans get news from digital devices, and, as of 2021, more than half prefer digital platforms to access news”).

18. Id. (citing Newspaper Association of America Comments at 12-18, Submitted in Response to July 15, 2009 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Mandatory Deposit of Published Electronic Works Available Only Online, U.S. Copyright Office Dkt. No. 2009-3 (Aug. 31, 2009) (emphasis omitted), https://www.copyright.gov/rulemaking/online-only/comments/naa.pdf ).

19. 37 CFR 202.4(e) . The Office's definition of newspapers is based on the Library of Congress's collection policy definition. Library of Congress, Collections Policy Statements: Newspapers—United States 1 (Sept. 2023), https://www.loc.gov/acq/devpol/neu.pdf .

20. NWU, NPPA, & NASW Comment at 12-13; Gordon Firemark 2 Comment (asserting that “the proposed regulation is not Content Neutral, as required under the First Amendment”).

21. Arkansas Writers Project, 481 U.S. at 234.

22. NWU, NPPA, & NASW Comment at 12-13.

23. Gordon Firemark 2 Comment.

24. Id. (citing Iancu v. Brunetti, 139 S. Ct. 2294 (2019), and Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. 218 (2017)).

25. Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155, 163 (2015).

26. Sable Commc'ns of Cal. v. FCC, 492 U.S. 115, 126 (1989).

27. Reed, 576 U.S. at 164 (internal quotes omitted).

28. Leathers v. Medlock, 499 U.S. 439, 452-53 (1991) (citing Mabee v. White Plains Publ'g Co., 327 U.S. 178 (1946), and Oklahoma Press Publ'g Co. v. Walling, 327 U.S. 186 (1946)).

29. Arkansas Writers Project, 481 U.S. at 229 (finding the tax scheme impermissibly targets a small group of the press because “the magazine exemption means that only a few Arkansas magazines pay any sales tax”).

30. Arkansas Writers Project, 481 U.S. at 229-30.

31. 37 CFR 202.3(b)(2)(i)(A) .

32. See generally id. at 202.4.

33. Vidal v. Elster, No. 22-704, slip op. at 1 (2024).

34. Id.

35. Id. at 4 (2024) (quoting National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, 585 U.S. 755, 766 (2018)).

36. Id. (2024) (quoting Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U. S. 819, 829 (1995)).

37. Id. at 6.

38. Id. at 12.

39. 17 U.S.C. 408(c)(1) (emphasis added).

40. Leathers, 499 U.S. at 452 (quoting Regan v. Taxation with Representation, 461 U.S. 540, 549 (1983)).

41. See Gordon Firemark 2 Comment (citing Iancu v. Brunetti, 139 S. Ct. 2294 (2019), and Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. 218 (2017)).

42. See, e.g., 85 FR 37341 , 37345 (June 22, 2020) (final rule for group registration of short online literary works); 83 FR 61546 , 61546-48 (Nov. 30, 2018) (final rule for group registration of newsletters and serials); 82 FR 29410 , 29410-11 (June 29, 2017) (final rule for group registration of contributions to periodicals).

43. See ABA-IPL Comment at 2; Am. Intell. Prop. L. Ass'n (“AIPLA”) Comment at 1 (“We encourage the Office to reconsider [the definition of `news website'] and clarify the final clause—`not limited to any specific subject matter'—which could be construed as excluding news websites with an industry-specific focus ( e.g., wired.com), and thus unnecessarily limiting access to this group registration option.”); Copyright All. Comment at 4 (“We urge deletion of the phrase `. . . on all subjects and activities and is not limited to any specific subject matter' in the proposed rule . . . .”); Harvard Bus. Publ'g (“HBP”) Comment; Nat'l Ass'n of Broad. (“NAB”) Comment at 3; NWU, NPPA, & NASW Comment at 12-13; NMA Comment at 8; The Authors Guild Comment at 2; see also Letter from Ass'n of Am. Publishers et al. to Suzanne Wilson, Gen. Counsel and Assoc. Register of Copyrights (Apr. 4, 2024).

44. ABA-IPL Comment at 2.

45. HBP Comment.

46. The Authors Guild Comment at 1-2.

47. John Murphy Comment; The Authors Guild Comment at 2 (arguing that “making eligibility determinations based on the substantive content of the materials submitted for registration . . . goes well beyond the Office's ordinary examination process”).

48. Gordon Firemark 1 Comment; see NWU, NPPA, & NASW at 12-13; Brenda Ulrich Comment; John Murphy Comment.

49. 37 CFR 202.4(e)(1) .

50. 82 FR 51369 , 51371 (Nov. 6, 2017).

51. 37 CFR 202.4(f)(1)(i) .

52. Id. at 202.4(e)(1) (“Newspapers are intended either for the general public or for a particular ethnic, cultural, or national group”).

53. The Authors Guild Comment at 1-2.

54. Cf. 37 CFR 202.4(f)(1)(i) (designed for newsletters that “contain news or information that is chiefly of interest to a special group”).

55. Group registration of serials provides a registration option for serial issues within a three-month period that meet the eligibility requirements for that option. Id. at 202.4(d)(1). Group registration of newsletters provides an option for registering a group of newsletters published within a one-month period. Id. at 202.4(f)(1).

56. Copyright All. Comment at 6; NAB Comment at 4; NMA Comment at 10.

57. The Authors Guild Comment at 2; Copyright All. Comment at 6; NAB Comment at 4.

58. U.S. Copyright Office, Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices sec. 722 (3d ed. 2021) (“ Compendium (Third) ”).

59. Id.

60. AIPLA Comment at 1-2.

61. Id.

62. In the NPRM, the Office also noted that when a website is registered as a compilation, the statute provides that the copyright owner may seek only one award of statutory damages for infringement of the compilation as a whole—rather than a separate award for each individual work that appears on the website—even if the defendant infringed all of the works covered by the registration. 17 U.S.C. 504(c)(1) (“For the purposes of this subsection, all the parts of a compilation or derivative work constitute one work.”). Some commenters urged the Office to acknowledge and adopt the “ `independent economic value' test to determine when copyrighted material constitutes a separate `work' for the purpose of determining eligibility for statutory damages.” A2IM, AAP, & RIAA Comment at 2-3; Copyright All. Comment at 8; NAB Comment at 6-8. Acknowledging that the NPRM correctly states “that the group registration option will extend to individual works that make up the collective work if they are fully owned by the applicant,” NMA asked the Office to confirm that its statement “do[es] not reflect a substantive opinion on eligibility for statutory damages.” NMA Comment at 11-12. The Office stands by its restatement of section 504(c)(1) and declines to address the matter further in this rulemaking. See H.R. Rep. No. 94-1476, at 162 (1976), reprinted in 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5659, 5770 (“Subsection (c)(1) makes clear, however, that, although they are regarded as independent works for other purposes, `all the parts of a compilation or derivative work constitute one work' for this purpose.”).

63. NPR Comment at 7.

64. 37 CFR 202.4(m)(1)(i) (emphasis added).

65. Compendium (Third) sec. 1002.2.

66. Id.

67. See 37 CFR 202.1(a) .

68. John Murphy Comment; see NPR Comment at 5 (“[T]he office should further relax the frequency”); NWU, NPPA, & NASW Comment at 16-17.

69. NPR Comment at 5.

70. NWU, NPPA, & NASW Comment at 16.

71. The Authors Guild Comment at 3; NWU, NPPA, & NASW Comment at 11; NMA Comment at 11; AIPLA Comment at 2; Letter from Ass'n of Am. Publishers et al. to Suzanne Wilson, Gen. Counsel and Assoc. Register of Copyrights (Apr. 4, 2024).

72. The Authors Guild Comment at 3; NWU, NPPA, & NASW Comment at 11.

73. NMA Comment at 11; AIPLA Comment at 2 (“[W]e see no clear policy reason to disfavor registration of copyrights acquired through other means ( e.g., by assignment).”).

74. Compendium (Third) sec. 620.4.

75. ABA-IPL Comment at 3; AIPLA Comment at 2; Copyright All. Comment at 6-7; NAB Comment at 5; NMA Comment at 7; The Authors Guild Comment at 4.

76. The Authors Guild Comment at 4.

77. Id.

78. Note, however, the Office will not certify the accuracy of such additional information based on the identifying material deposited.

79. Copyright All. Comment at 7.

80. NMA Comment at 7.

81. 89 FR at 316.

82. Id.

83. Id.

84. NMA Comment at 11.

85. 37 CFR 202.4(m)(6)(i) (emphasis added); see also 89 FR at 316 (“Each PDF must show how the home page appeared at a specific point during each day of the calendar month when new updates were published on the site.”).

86. Copyright Alliance Comment at 10-11; NAB Comment at 4-5; NMA Comment at 11. See also Letter from Ass'n of Am. Publishers et al. to Suzanne Wilson, Gen. Counsel and Assoc. Register of Copyrights at App. at 2 (Apr. 4, 2024) (proposing regulatory language altering the deposit requirement when “a complete copy is technically unfeasible or unreadable due to the size or continuous nature of the home page”); Nexstar Media Group Inc. Comment (stating that Nexstar “would like to see even more modification of the requirements for article submission, so that each local television station or other news site would not be required to have dedicated staff purely for depositing copyrighted materials, which may be updated several times per day”).

87. NAB Comment at 5.

88. Id.

89. Copyright All. Comment at 10-11.

90. NMA Comment at 11.

91. 89 FR at 316.

92. NWU, NPPA, & NASW Comment at 17-20.

93. Id.

94. Id.

95. Id.; see also id. at 20 (proposing “submission of `a file or set of files linked from a master file listing in structured form the text files on the site added or modified during the time period covered by the application, including the URL and the date each file was added to the site or most recently modified' ”).

96. Id. at 17, 20. NWU, NPPA, and NASW asserted that “the `sitemap.xml' standard has been widely accepted and adopted by website publishers, web publishing platforms, and developers of content management systems (CMSs).” Id. at 17-18.

97. See 17 U.S.C. 410(a) ; Compendium (Third) sec. 204.3 (“[D]eposit copy(ies) should be clear and should contain all the authorship that the applicant intends to register.”). This finding is bolstered by the examples cited in NWU, NPPA, and NASW's comment, which do not provide any information that would allow the examiner to determine any copyrightability of the collective work. See NWU, NPPA, & NASW Comment at 18 nn.19-22; id. at 19 nn.23-26.

98. See H.R. Rep. No. 94-1476, at 153 (1976), reprinted in 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5659, 5769 (“As a general rule the deposit of more than a tear sheet or similar fraction of a collective work is needed to identify the contribution properly and to show the form in which it was published.”).

99. 89 FR at 316.

100. See NWU, NPPA, & NASW Comment at 20 (suggesting that sitemaps “could be used immediately in manual Copyright Office work flow but would also lend themselves to efficiencies through automated parsing”).

101. Erik Gottlieb Comment.

102. Copyright All. Comment at 6; NMA Comment at 10; The Authors Guild Comment at 2. See also Letter from Ass'n of Am. Publishers et al. to Suzanne Wilson, Gen. Counsel and Assoc. Register of Copyrights at 1 & App. at 2 (Apr. 4, 2024) (proposing the Office “include[e] mobile app content in the scope of the rule”). The Office also received a comment from Port. Prerogative Club, suggesting that the Office “evaluate whether native [version control systems (“VCS”)] files would satisfy [the Office's] internal requirements for deposit copies.” Port. Prerogative Club Comment at 2. The Office currently does not accept this file format, but will revisit file formats as part of its ongoing work in developing the Enterprise Copyright System.

103. Erik Gottlieb Comment.

104. NMA Comment at App. at 16 (proposing regulatory language). See Copyright All. Comment at 6; NMA Comment at 10; The Authors Guild Comment at 2. See also Letter from Ass'n of Am. Publishers et al. to Suzanne Wilson, Gen. Counsel and Assoc. Register of Copyrights at 1 & App. at 2 (Apr. 4, 2024) (proposing the Office “includ[e] mobile app content in the scope of the rule”).

105. Copyright All. Comment at 6; The Authors Guild Comment at 2.

106. Copyright All. Comment at 6.

107. Id. (noting that “news content on an app is already organized and contained in an interconnected and uniform ecosystem, much like a website”); NMA Comment at 10 (stating that app screenshots serve the same “identifying function as URLs”).

108. NMA Comment at 10.

109. See 89 FR at 313 (“[T]he organization and arrangement show in a PDF package may vary depending on whether it depicts the website as it would appear on a desktop computer, a mobile phone or other electronic device.”). But cf. ABA-IPL Comment at 4 (“The Section is aware of no substantive difference between what is published at a URL and what is published on an app.”).

110. ABA-IPL Comment at 4-5.

111. Id. at 4.

112. UM-Library Comment at 1-2.

113. 89 FR at 313; see also eCO Acceptable File Types, U.S. Copyright Office, https://www.copyright.gov/eco/help-file-types.html (last visited July 5, 2024) (listing acceptable file formats).

114. For example, the Office is researching the web archive file format (“WARC”) that is utilized by the Library of Congress' Web Archiving Team. Research has shown that there are many publicly available options for adapting websites in the WARC format, including through internet browser extensions.

115. 17 U.S.C. 408(c)(1) ; see also 89 FR at 311 (discussing identifying material).

116. H.R. Rep. No. 94-1496, at 154 (1976), reprinted in 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5659, 5770.

117. See 89 FR at 313, 316 (discussing how depositing complete copies of websites poses difficulties for applicants and the Office).

118. Id. at 316.

119. Id.

120. See Letter from Ass'n of Am. Publishers et al. to Suzanne Wilson, Gen. Counsel and Assoc. Register of Copyrights (Apr. 4, 2024); Copyright All. Comment at 11.

121. H.R. Rep. No. 79-1980, at 260 (1946). See 5 U.S.C. 553(d) (30-day notice not required where agency finds good cause).

[ FR Doc. 2024-15880 Filed 7-19-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1410-30-P

Executive Orders

Reader Aids

Information.

About This Site
Accessibility
No Fear Act
Continuity Information

COMMENTS

RESEARCH-PAPER-CHAPTER-1-5 (1)
Legend: (5) Strongly Agree (4) Agree (3) Moderately (2) Disagree (1) Strongly Disagree 45 2.1 COST EFFICIENT (BLENDED LEARNING) 5 4 3 5 4 3 2 1 1. I prefer to staying at home than to spend my money for transportation going to school. 2. After going home from school I still have an extra money for my savings. 3.
Sample Chapter 1 to 5 of a Research Paper
Chapter 1 THE PROBLEM. Introduction For many thousands of years, thermal springs or commonly known as hot springs are known places for locals and foreigners either for excursion or for medical purposes specifically for balneotherapy. (Hamzah, Z. et. al.,2013). Hot Springs are areas where warm or hot ground water issues from the earth on a regular basis for at least a predictable period and is ...
PDF DISSERTATION Chapters 1-5 Section Rubric
Dissertation Chapter 1 - 5 Sections Rubric - Version 1 May 1, 2019 DISSERTATION CHAPTER 1 - 5 ... This section describes the conceptual basis for what the researcher will investigate, including the research questions, hypotheses, and basic research design. ... • Other examples are: Dissertation Chapter 1 - 5 Sections Rubric - Version 1 ...
PDF CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
Some examples include: research, engineering, computer programming, physical sciences, life sciences, or design. Despite more women entering the workforce in STEM professions, trends show that women leave ... Chapter I begins on page 1. 2 . adequate return, if there continues to be a high percentage of men and women who leave at ...
PDF A Complete Dissertation
1. Introduction 2. Literature review 3. Methodology 4. Findings 5. Analysis and synthesis 6. Conclusions and recommendations Chapter 1: Introduction This chapter makes a case for the signifi-cance of the problem, contextualizes the study, and provides an introduction to its basic components. It should be informative and able to stand alone as a ...
The Dissertation: Chapter Breakdown
Dissertation OverviewThe traditional dissertation is organized into 5 chapters and includes the following elements and pages:Title page (aka cover page) Signature ...
Free Research Paper Template (Word Doc & PDF)
If you're preparing to write an academic research paper, our free research paper template is the perfect starting point. In the template, we cover every section step by step, with clear, straightforward explanations and examples.. The template's structure is based on the tried and trusted best-practice format for formal academic research papers. The template structure reflects the overall ...
Part 1 (Chapters 1
Chapter 4: Methods and Data in Qualitative Research; Chapter 5: Subjectivity, Identity, and Texts in Qualitative Research; Part 2 (Chapters 6 - 13): Research Design. Chapter 6: Formulating a Research Question; Chapter 7: Choosing and Constructing the Research Design; Chapter 8: Planning the Process in Qualitative Research; Chapter 9: Ethics ...
Writing a Research Paper Introduction
This paper first discusses several examples of survey-based research into adolescent social media use, then goes on to … Research paper introduction examples. Full examples of research paper introductions are shown in the tabs below: one for an argumentative paper, the other for an empirical paper.
Examples of thesis and chapter formats when including publications
Chapter 1: Introduction Chapter 2: Literature review Chapter 3: Methods Chapter 4: Paper 1 & general discussion Chapter 5: Paper 2 Chapter 6: Regular thesis chapter - results Chapter 7: Regular thesis chapter/general discussion tying in published and unpublished work; Chapter 8: Conclusion Appendices - May include CD, DVD or other material, also reviews & methods papers
(DOC) CHAPTER 1-5 FINAL THESIS (2)
Academia.edu is a platform for academics to share research papers. CHAPTER 1-5 FINAL THESIS (2) . × Close Log In. Log in with ... Profile of the Sample 1.1 Age Table 1 Distribution of respondents according to age Age Frequency Percentage Rank 12-13 38 19.49 3 14-15 108 55. 38 1 16-17 49 25.13 2 Total 195 100 Table 1 above revealed the ...
(DOC) Chapter 1-5 final research paper
Chapter 1-5 final research paper ... The population in this study were all students, so the sample used by the researcher was class XI, amounting to 406 students with a sample of 201 students. Based on the results of this study, it was found that 1) students 'perceptions of the preservation of the school environment from outside perception ...
Thesis Chapter 1-5
This chapter presents: (a) research method; (b) research variables; (c) operational definition; (d) population and sample; (e) techniques for collecting data; and (f) techniques for analyzing data. A. Research Method In this study, the writer used quasi-experimental method. Fraenkel, et. al., (2012, p. 275) explain that quasi-experimental ...
(DOC) Thesis Manuscript Sample Chapters 1 to 5
Her research interests are in social and personality psychology. The Intervention Learn Enhance Achieve Program (LEAP) will assess its effect on the level of Rejection Sensitivity and Self-Acceptance of Senior High School Students of Perpetual University. This will be her first research paper that will be published.
Chapter-1-5
Example of a Quantitative research including the Statement of the problem, Conceptual Framework, and research desigh. Research. Mandatory assignments. ... Chapter-1-5 - Research paper. Course: Research (RES 101) 248 Documents. Students shared 248 documents in this course. University: Batangas State University. Info More info.
(DOC) Chapter 1 to 5
This chapter discusses the research methodology to be used in the study. The chapter presents details of the research design, target population, sample and sampling procedures, description of research instruments, validity of instruments, data collection procedures, data analysis techniques and ethical considerations.
Group Registration of Updates to a News Website
114. For example, the Office is researching the web archive file format ("WARC") that is utilized by the Library of Congress' Web Archiving Team. Research has shown that there are many publicly available options for adapting websites in the WARC format, including through internet browser extensions. Back to Citation