Question 1

The method section of a paper should contain:
A) enough information so that you could replicate the study if you wished.
B) a general outline of the methods used and no detail.
C) a brief description of the results as well as the methods used.
D) subjective interpretations of research data.

Accepted Answer

The method section should provide detailed information on the procedures and materials used in the study, allowing others to replicate the research if desired.

Question 2

A critical question you should ask yourself when evaluating a method section is:
A) who conducted this research?
B) does the method used allow for an unambiguous test of the stated hypotheses?
C) why did the author choose the measures he or she did?
D) All of the answers are correct.

Accepted Answer

The answer of A critical question you should ask yourself...

Question 3

According to the text, when evaluating the method section of an article, you should ask yourself who served as participants in the study. This is important because it helps you determine the _____ of the results reported.
A) reliability
B) generality
C) accuracy
D) All of the answers are correct.

Accepted Answer

The participants in a study affect the generality of the results, as they determine to whom the findings can be applied or generalized.

Question 4

When evaluating a results section, you should determine whether the:
A) results are important.
B) results fit with your feelings about the phenomenon under investigation.
C) appropriate statistics were applied.
D) results agree with the particular theory to which you subscribe.

Accepted Answer

The evaluation of a results section should focus on whether appropriate statistical methods were used to analyze the data, ensuring the validity and reliability of the findings.

Question 5

When reading the results section of a research article, you should ask yourself:
A) which effects are statistically significant.
B) whether the differences reported are large or small.
C) whether the text, tables, and figures match.
D) All of the answers are correct.

Accepted Answer

All of the answers are correct because understanding statistical significance, the magnitude of differences, and consistency between text, tables, and figures are all crucial for interpreting research results accurately.

Question 6

Your primary concern when reading a discussion section of a research article is whether the:
A) author's conclusions follow from the data reported.
B) data reported fit with the particular theory to which you subscribe.
C) hypotheses were clearly stated.
D) All of the answers are correct.

Accepted Answer

The primary concern in the discussion section is to evaluate whether the conclusions drawn by the authors are logically supported by the data presented in the study.

Question 7

An author's interpretation of his or her results is found in the _____ of a research article.
A) discussion section
B) introduction
C) method section
D) results section

Accepted Answer

The discussion section of a research article is where the author interprets the results, discusses their implications, and suggests future research directions.

Question 8

According to the text, a hypothesis should:
A) specify precisely what methods are to be used in your research.
B) flow logically from the sources of information used to develop your research question.
C) include a statement of the statistics that will be used to analyze your data.
D) All of the answers are correct.

Accepted Answer

A hypothesis should logically follow from the sources of information used to develop the research question, ensuring it is grounded in existing knowledge and theory.

Question 9

Most journals will refuse publication of a paper if the:
A) authors are from a non-prestigious institution.
B) results fail to reach conventionally accepted levels of statistical significance.
C) paper has more than three authors.
D) All of the answers are correct.

Accepted Answer

Most journals prioritize the significance of results over the authors' affiliations or the number of authors, and they often reject papers that do not meet statistical significance thresholds.

Question 10

Which of the following is a consequence of the file drawer phenomenon?
A) Authors of published findings are not paid for their work.
B) Most research findings are published without peer review.
C) Published findings as a group may be less reliable than they seem.
D) Statistically insignificant research results may be published more often than statistically significant results.

Accepted Answer

The file drawer phenomenon refers to the bias introduced when studies with non-significant results are less likely to be published, leading to a skewed perception of research reliability because only significant findings are overrepresented in the literature.

Question 11

A criterion used to assess a research paper's acceptability for publication is:
A) who conducted the research.
B) where the results had been published before.
C) whether or not the author used sophisticated or simple statistics.
D) how consistent the findings are with previous knowledge.

Accepted Answer

The consistency of the findings with previous knowledge is crucial as it helps validate the research's contribution to the existing body of knowledge and ensures that the results are reliable and credible.

Question 12

Findings that do not make sense within the currently accepted framework are:
A) looked on with suspicion.
B) published immediately with no review.
C) given priority for publication but still reviewed.
D) None of the answers is correct.

Accepted Answer

Findings that do not align with the current scientific framework are often scrutinized and looked on with suspicion to ensure their validity before being accepted or published.

Question 13

When an accepted research framework exists, anomalous findings:
A) call into question the integrity of the researcher producing the anomalous findings.
B) shake the framework right to its foundations.
C) call into question the anomalous findings rather than the framework.
D) cause the framework to be discarded immediately.

Accepted Answer

When an accepted research framework exists, anomalous findings are typically scrutinized more closely than the framework itself, as the framework is well-established and has been validated by previous research.

Question 14

When determining whether to accept or reject a paper for publication, editors and reviewers:
A) usually insist that a research paper report a series of experiments or at least a parametric study involving several levels of two or more variables.
B) assess the degree to which the findings in the paper contribute to the advancement of knowledge.
C) assess the consistency of the findings with previous knowledge.
D) All of the answers are correct.

Accepted Answer

Editors and reviewers consider multiple factors when deciding on the publication of a paper, including the contribution to knowledge, consistency with existing research, and the robustness of the study design.

Question 15

A present editorial policy seems to be that:
A) single experiments are preferred over multiple experiments.
B) no more than two experiments should be reported in one paper.
C) multiple experiments or a parametric study involving several levels of two or more independent variables is more acceptable than single experiments.
D) follow-ups to a main experiment reported in a paper should be handled in separate "research notes" publications.

Accepted Answer

Multiple experiments or a parametric study involving several levels of two or more independent variables is more acceptable than single experiments, as it provides a more comprehensive understanding of the research question.

Question 16

Which of the following is a consequence of insisting on multiple experiments within a research paper?
A) Inclusion of multiple experiments in the paper decreases the likelihood of the file drawer phenomenon occurring.
B) There is a greater possibility that a reviewer will find methodological defects.
C) The findings of the paper are more likely to elicit subjective interpretations by the general public.
D) Revenue from the paper is likely to be insufficient in funding further research by the author of the paper.

Accepted Answer

Including multiple experiments increases the chances that reviewers will identify methodological issues, as there are more opportunities for scrutiny.

Question 17

Michael Saks, at that time the editor of Law and Human Behavior, made a statement concerning the type of research he would like to see submitted for publication. This is an example of _____ affecting what is published.
A) editorial policy
B) reviewer bias
C) editor's bias
D) consistency with previous findings

Accepted Answer

Editorial policy refers to the guidelines and preferences set by an editor or editorial board that influence the type of content accepted for publication. Michael Saks' statement about the type of research he wants to see is an example of editorial policy.

Question 18

In the context of the publication of a research paper written by an author, which of the following is a function of the peer-review process?
A) To provide feedback to the author
B) To guarantee the quality of the paper
C) To determine the amount of money to be paid to the author
D) To determine whether the results of the study have already been published

Accepted Answer

To provide feedback to the author

Question 19

Which of the following is a criticism of the peer-review process in the field of the social sciences?
A) Reviewers lack the means to provide feedback to the authors of reviewed articles.
B) Reviewers may be direct competitors of the authors of reviewed articles.
C) Reviewers are paid more if they find more errors.
D) Reviewers may be from non-scientific backgrounds.

Accepted Answer

Reviewers may be direct competitors of the authors, which can lead to bias or conflicts of interest in the peer-review process.

Question 20

Mahoney (1977), in his study of factors that affect reviewer evaluations, found that:
A) reviewers are remarkably unbiased in their assessments of research.
B) a paper was rated higher if the results supported the reviewer's theoretical point of view.
C) the most important factor contributing to evaluations of a paper was how the results were interpreted.
D) statistical significance of the results reported actually had little to do with ratings of a paper.

Accepted Answer

Mahoney (1977) found that reviewers tended to rate papers more favorably if the results aligned with their own theoretical perspectives, indicating a bias in evaluations based on agreement with the reviewer's views.

Quiz 3: Getting Ideas for Research

The method section of a paper should contain:

A critical question you should ask yourself when evaluating a method section is:

According to the text, when evaluating the method section of an article, you should ask yourself who served as participants in the study. This is important because it helps you determine the _____ of the results reported.

When evaluating a results section, you should determine whether the:

When reading the results section of a research article, you should ask yourself:

Your primary concern when reading a discussion section of a research article is whether the:

An author's interpretation of his or her results is found in the _____ of a research article.

According to the text, a hypothesis should:

Most journals will refuse publication of a paper if the:

Which of the following is a consequence of the file drawer phenomenon?

A criterion used to assess a research paper's acceptability for publication is:

Findings that do not make sense within the currently accepted framework are:

When an accepted research framework exists, anomalous findings:

When determining whether to accept or reject a paper for publication, editors and reviewers:

A present editorial policy seems to be that:

Which of the following is a consequence of insisting on multiple experiments within a research paper?

Michael Saks, at that time the editor of Law and Human Behavior, made a statement concerning the type of research he would like to see submitted for publication. This is an example of _____ affecting what is published.

In the context of the publication of a research paper written by an author, which of the following is a function of the peer-review process?

Which of the following is a criticism of the peer-review process in the field of the social sciences?

Mahoney (1977) , in his study of factors that affect reviewer evaluations, found that: