I. How to Make Your Title Shine

I have found a few good examples to show how research paper titles can be improved by increasing the overall clarity. Good titles are precise and concise and must not be too long and wordy.

When I edit a research paper, I usually leave the title first, edit the whole body of the copy, and only then go back to the title. The same goes for the abstract. There is no point in trying to improve those elements before I have worked through the whole copy and understood all the points. 

I have left out certain details in the examples for privacy reasons. 

Let's have a look at the examples below:

[Original copy]

"Cultural Barriers in Translating the Qur'an into Low Context Culture: The Words of God in Javanese [name of dialect]."

First of all, the title is rather long. Shorter titles are better, but this is not always achievable. Barriers to/in/against/for? Is "cultural barriers" a proper term? English prepositions are a tricky bunch. "Low context culture" -- there might be a hyphen missing here. The "Words of God?" -- shouldn't it be "the Word of God" in the singular? After confirming all points, I decide not to shorten the title because it has a nice parallel structure. 

[Edited copy]

"Cultural Barriers in Translating the Qur’an into Low-Context Culture: The Word of God in Javanese [name of dialect]."

I decide to keep "barriers in" instead of "barriers to" -- both are being used, although the correct use is certainly "barriers to". It has to be "low-context culture" because "low" defines "context", not "culture". "The Word of God" is used instead of "scripture".  It's a good title that describes the topic well. 

[Original copy]

"Waqf and Spirituality-Gene Expression: Quranic Exegesis and Biological Explanation."

 It's obvious that the first word is foreign and should be kept in italics but not the rest. "Spirituality-Gene" seems a bit awkward-- does it need a hyphen? Is "gene expression" a proper term? "Biological explanation" seems a bit stiff and out of place here. 

[Edited copy]

"Waqf and ‘Spirituality Gene’ Expression: The Qurʾan and Advances in Biogenetics."

Waqf as a foreign term is kept in italics. Since I'm familiar with the term "God gene", I take "Spirituality gene" as an adaptation of the said. The article deals with Qur'an interpretation but it's not of primary importance here, therefore "Qur'an" is enough. I decide to replace the rather plain and vague "biological explanation" with "advances in biogenetics" -- it sounds far better. 

[Original copy]

 "The Role of [name] in the Early British Sufism Discourse."

At first sight, the title seems okay, but it can be improved. "Early" and "British" and "Sufism" -- three words to describe "discourse" seems a bit too much. 

[Edited copy]

"Sir [name] (1746–1794) and the Early Orientalist Discourse on Sufism."

Upon researching the name, I learn that [name] had been a British peer. The title "Sir" has to be included in the name. For correct identification of the person, I add the dates in brackets. It also helps the whole (historical) article because now the readers know that it deals with 18th-century history. I decide to keep "early" because the topic deals with the beginnings of orientalism, so it's justified here. What I find missing in the title is "orientalist" and add it to further define "discourse". "Sufism" is the topic of the discourse, so properly rendered as "discourse on Sufism." The initial "the role of" can safely be discarded. If the article is on [name], his role is already implied.