Peer Review Quick Guide
***
Common MistakesPrevious MistakeNext MistakePrint This PageExit
***
***
Test Your Knowledge tabUnclear Research Methods - Trimming and Cooking Data tab
 
Sample Paper Excerpt

An investigator has completed research on a study she is hoping to publish. The study involves a relatively small set of observations (140) on the magnetic properties of a certain compound. She is in the ideal position of testing two competing mathematical models predicting different strengths and orientations of the magnetic fields of the compound.

As the investigator performed the analysis, she noticed that a group of the observations (49 of them) appeared to be poor measures, not consistent with either theory. The other 91 observations conformed very nicely to the predictions generated by one of the models being tested. She analyzed all observations, and included in a footnote that 49 of the observations seemed 'problematic'.

The peer reviewer recommended redoing the analysis section using only the 91 observations that behaved according to expectations, and to mention in a footnote that 49 observations were dropped due to measurement error.
 
How should the analysis be conducted and reported?





 
Proceed to the Next Mistake
 
***
Finished? View Performance Report
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***Developed 2006 by the Faculty Development and Instructional Design Center, Northern Illinois University.