PSYC5252 Assessment 3
PSYC5252 Assessment 3
Week Due Week 11, Monday at 4:00pm AEST/AEDT*
Assessment Type Manuscript Review
Weighting 35%
Aligned Learning outcomes b. Critically evaluate the rigour of research designs and methods used in psychology, theirepistemological and ontological bases,limitations and implications for psychological research and practice
d. Effectively conduct, report and interpretquantitative and qualitative analyses, includingusing statistical software
e. Communicate effectively and with integrity for relevant audiences
Length 2000 words (not including references)
*Australian Eastern Standard Time/Australian Eastern Daylight Time (AEST/AEDT). Check your time zone to ensure that you submit your assessment on time. If required, use a time zone converter.
Assessment Task 3 Details and InstructionsBeing a research consumer
You will adopt the role of a journal reviewer. You will be required to critically review the methodological and data analysis components of a mock journal article, as well as re-analyse the data and present it in correct APA style.
This assessment is very different from any assessment that you would have done in the past. It has been deliberately designed for this course, and to complement and test your knowledge of research methods and data analysis.
In this assessment, you are cast in the role of someone who is reviewing a journal article that has been submitted for publication. When manuscripts are submitted for publication, they are reviewed by at least two people using a system called blind peer reviewing. What this means is that you don't know who is reviewing your paper, and your name and affiliation is taken off the manuscript so the reviewer does not know the author's name or where the paper comes from. This is an attempt to avoid all sorts of biases creeping into the review process.The mock manuscript is a single file that can be found on the Moodle class space. I have tried to present it as closely as possible as a "real" manuscript. It is obviously more basic than the research you would find in a manuscript presented for publication, and the citations are made up (no references have been provided; do you think that is something you should comment on?), but the basic structure, format, and presentation is pretty much what you would see in a "real" manuscript.What is unusual is that you will be provided with the raw data in SPSS format that formed the basis for the manuscript. This is rare, but it does happen. Authors are regularly asked to keep copies of their raw data so that the article reviewer or journal editor can check the statistical analysis. Making raw data publicly available for quality control is starting to become more common. This is part of what is referred to as the Open Science movement. There is a good short introductory article on open science from The Conversation here: https://theconversation.com/research-transparency-5-questions-about-open-science-answered-76851. Finally, there is a letter to the editor that will form the basis for your report.Your job is to fill in the section under the heading "Specific points of note". What you need to do is point out the flaws in background, design, method, analysis, and interpretation that has led to your strong rejection of the paper. You need to highlight what the author has done and where he has gone wrong, and you need to correct his errors by providing the correct analysis of the data, including correct versions of the tables, if need be. Your focus must be on the methodological aspects of the manuscript; for example, you shouldn't waste space making comments on the APA style of the paper, or saying that the discussion is too short, or stuff such as that. I repeat--your focus should be on the design, analysis, interpretation, and method. That is the main reason why you have rejected the paper. You certainly aren't meant to criticise the actual research; in other words, there's no need to provide reference material on the actual topic. It's the methodological issues that count. By the way, this also includes ethics.There is no set format for your review, just as there is no single perfect format for the way "real" reviewers approach reviewing manuscripts. You can use numbered or bullet points, or you can use sub-headings. In fact, part of the assessment will be based on the structure you apply to the task and how well that gets your message across.This is a totally new assessment for you, and you may feel that you are swimming in the dark when it comes to presenting the report. This is where the Q and A Forum comes into its own. Please use it freely to post any questions you might have, no matter how naive you think they might be.The word limit for the report is 2000 words; that's 2000 words of what YOU write, so it doesn't include the stuff that I have provided for you in the mock letter to the editor. The 2000 words does not include material in tables or figures, or references.
Assignment FAQ
Q. How should I format the report?
A. There isnt really one correct way of formatting the report. The most common approach is to itemise the errors in the first section, and then provide corrections to those in a following section. However, thats just one approach. You could also highlight an error and then provide the correction before moving on to the next error and correction. Thats also fine. This isnt an APA style research report. You are not writing a report. You are reviewing a manuscript. Its a different exercise. The format itself is not as important as making sure you have correctly identified errors and corrected them.
Q. Should I use references? If so, how many?
A. This is not really a report that requires extensive referencing. In fact, it is possible to write this report with no references at all. This is all about assessing your knowledge and understanding of the research methods that we have been discussing in this subject. However, if you make a claim that you think requires some support, then by all means include a supporting reference. For example, you might say something along the lines of It is generally argued that minor deviations from normality are not important, particularly when the sample size is greater than 50 (Smith, 2017). Thats the sort of statement that would benefit from a supporting reference. When it comes to references, I always follow one golden rulewhen in doubt, pop in a reference. There are certain phrases that almost seem to demand a referenceIt has been argued, It is generally accepted, Researchers have claimed, and so on. These are the sorts of phrases that really seem to suggest a reference. In terms of the number of references, I never set a number. To me, its all about quality over quantity. Two good references can be better than 20 useless ones.
Q. Im seeing errors in the paper apart from errors in methodology and the other things you listed. Should I highlight those?
A. Theres no point in doing so; they will be ignored in assessing your report. Stick to the areas that Ive highlighted in the body of this guide.
Q. Is the data real?
A. No, the data has been made up for this assignment.
Q. My assignment doesnt come anywhere near 2000 words. Is that a problem?
A. No, not at all. There is no minimum word count. 2000 words is the absolute maximum. There NO 10% wriggle-room on that. 2000 means 2000, and thats it.
Q. What needs to be in APA style?
A. Any tables and graphs that you present must be in properly formatted APA style. In addition, if you present any statistical results in text, that material must be formatted in correct APA style.
Q. Do I need to attach my own analysis of the results as an appendix?
A. No, you do not. You only need to submit one documentyour review of the manuscript for Professor Mouse.
Assessment guide
ULO Fail Pass Credit Distinction High Distinction
Identification and explanation of errors Demonstrates knowledge of research methods
Has the student correctly identified all errors in design, methodology, analysis, and interpretation, along with any other material in the text related to that? Have those errors been correctly described, as in, why are they errors?
b, d Lacks adequate knowledge in research methods Adequate knowledge in research methods with some areas requiring improvement Adequate knowledge in research methods with few areas requiring improvement Very good knowledge in research methods Excellent knowledge in research methods
Correction of errors
Has the student re-analysed the data correctly? Is the choice of analysis correct, and has it been implemented correctly?
Has the student presented the re-analysed data correctly? Are all tables and text correct?
Has the student appropriately corrected the issues related to design, methodology, analysis, interpretation, and any other material in the text related to that? b,d Lacks adequate knowledge in research methods Adequate knowledge in research methods with some areas requiring improvement Adequate knowledge in research methods with few areas requiring improvement Very good knowledge in research methods Excellent knowledge in research methods
Referencing and Writing Style
Appropriate APA (7th edition) style, formatting and referencing e Overall lack of clarity and poor expression. Extensive use of lay writing style. A failure to adhere to APA Publication Manual (7th Edition). A reasonable attempt at formal academic writing but more edits needed. An attempt at APA Publication Manual (7th Edition) formatting witha number oferrors. A good academic writing style with only minor errors. General adherence to APA Publication Manual (7th Edition) formatting with only minor errors. A very good academic writing style. General adherence to APA Publication Manual (7th Edition) formatting with only one or two minor errors. Exemplary academic writing style throughout. Complete adherence to APA Publication Manual (7th Edition) formatting throughout.
