I.
INTRODUCTION
A.
Prior Research
Did the author(s) discuss prior research? Part of the purpose of the Introduction is to introduce
the reader to the topic of the article and the variables that are investigated.
1.
Is the topic of the paper stated clearly and explicitly? For example, the topic of the article
should be introduced immediately within the first few paragraphs of the manuscript in
order to help orient the reader to the objective of the article.
2.
Is the topic of the paper introduced and integrated within the larger literature? For
example, how does this article fit within the existing literature? As the authors are experts
in the subject matter of the article, it is important and helpful to society/field to convey
their expert knowledge about the published literature, and about how the topic fits within
that literature.
3.
Is the review of the relevant literature adequate? The extent of the literature review is
partly based upon the journal in which the article is published/submitted, with the more
reputable journals having the more detailed and comprehensive literature reviews within
the Introduction. At the most basic level, the literature review should contain the essential
information about the topic; and at the most comprehensive level, the literature review
should contain all relevant work.
4.
Are there sources that have been overlooked or not cited? As a reviewer of the article,
you are entrusted with ensuring that the authors have included all relevant citations. As a
consumer of the article, you are entrusting the reviewers and editors with not publishing
the article if there is inadequate or inaccurate citation. The level of citation is also partly
based upon the quality of the journal in which the article is published/submitted.
5.
If the prior literature is being used to show that there is a problem or gap in the prior
literature, what is that problem or gap? In the next section about Present Research, you
will identify how the present research solves or fills that gap?
6.
Does the introduction of the topic lead logically and systematically to the present
research and hypotheses? An Introduction is like an hourglass that should start broad, and
then taper down to specific information about the precise hypotheses within the study.
B.
Present Research
Did the author(s) discuss the present research? While you may think it obvious that a research
study should explicitly state the purpose and scope of the research conducted in the article, some
articles omit this essential section of the article.
1.
What is the purpose of the present research?
2.
Is the purpose of the article clear and concise?
3.
Is the topic/hypotheses placed within the context of previous research?
4.
How does the present research improve upon previous research?
5.
If the prior literature is being used to show that there is a problem or gap in the prior
literature, how does the present research solve or fill that gap?
6.
Have the author(s) clarified how the topic or research question has not been addressed
in prior the literature?
7.
Have the author(s) clearly stated what is new and original about the present research?
8.
Does each argument/statement receive appropriate support -- either through citations or
logical analyses?
9.
Is a definition provided for each psychological term/variable?
10.
11.
12.
13.
If the topic/variable has been previously investigated, what is the definition provided by
the literature? Are there citations provided? Are there disagreements in the literature
about the definition of the topic/variables?
If the topic/variable has not been previously investigated or defined, how does the
authors define the variable? A precise and formal definition is essential, especially for
new topics/variables, because without it the reader can not get a clear understanding of
the topic of the paper and the purpose of the research.
Are there other labels or synonyms for the topic/variables that need to be discussed?
Can the topic/variables be dividing into two or more separate parts? If so, a definition
and description of each separate part needs to be stated?
IMPORTANCE
14.
Is the topic important, and why?
15.
Does the topic have theoretical importance? Not all articles require theoretical
importance, but it is important to identify how and why the present research could be
theoretically important?
16.
Does the topic have practical importance? Does the article have relevance for society, or
solve a real-world problem? Not all articles require practical importance, but it is
important to identify how and why the present research could be practically important?
17.
From reading the introduction, do you care about knowing the answer to the research
question?
18.
Who would care about this research, and why? What does the answer to that question
tell you about the importance of the present research?
19.
How does this research advance our knowledge or understanding of the topic?
THEORY
20.
If the paper is theoretically based, is the theoretical rationale clear?
21.
Is the theory strong and coherent? For example, are there any logical gaps in the
argument?
22.
If the paper is based upon a prior theory, is the paper refining or updating the theory? If
so, what is the prior theory? Have the authors identified the problem in the prior theory?
Have the authors precisely stated how the present research solves the problem?
23.
Do the hypotheses (described below) flow from the existing theory in a logical and
coherent manner?
C.
Hypotheses
Did the author(s) state the hypotheses? While you may think it obvious that a research study
should state the research hypotheses, some articles omit this essential section of the article. Also,
keep in mind that some authors state the hypotheses in the Introduction, while others state the
hypotheses at the beginning of the Method section.
1.
Are the hypotheses Clear? Can you understand from reading the Introduction the purpose
of the research? The rationale of the research? Can you restate the hypothesis in your
own words? Do you agree with the rationale behind the hypothesis?
2.
Are the hypotheses Precise and Specific? For example, what are the exact predictions
generated by the hypotheses? How will the participant’s responses differ among the
3.
4.
5.
6.
variables? If the study involves different experimental conditions, what is the expected
outcome of the different conditions and why?
Are the hypotheses Testable and Falsifiable? For example, are the variables observable
and empirically testable? There are many variables that defy empirical investigation, so it
is important to identify whether the present research can/should be empirically tested and
whether it is possible to prove the hypotheses true or false.
Are the hypotheses Parsimonious? For example, is the hypothesis unnecessarily overly
complicated? Can/should the hypotheses be broken-up into smaller, more specific, subhypotheses? Is the hypotheses overly wordy, and could benefit from cutting away
superfluous verbiage? Is the hypotheses stated in the simplest approach possible?
Are the hypotheses Consistent with prior literature on the topic? If there are
discrepancies or inconsistencies, have they been clearly explained? Do you agree with the
arguments?
If there are multiple hypotheses, are they internally consistent and coherent?
IF DESCRIPTIVE RESEARCH
7.
What are the variables?
8.
What are the definitions of the variables? See the “Present Research” section above for
questions to ask yourself, such as... If the topic/variable has been previously investigated,
what is the definition provided by the literature? Are there citations provided? Are there
disagreements in the literature about the definition of the topic/variables? If the
topic/variable has not been previously investigated or defined, how does the authors
define the variable? A precise and formal definition is essential, especially for new
topics/variables, because without it the reader can not get a clear understanding of the
topic of the paper and the purpose of the research. Are there other labels or synonyms for
the topic/variables that need to be discussed? Can the topic/variables be dividing into two
or more separate parts? If so, a definition and description of each separate part needs to
be stated?
IF RELATIONAL RESEARCH …
9.
Do the hypotheses state the nature and scope of the relationship among the variables?
For example, does the article state the direction and magnitude; is the relationship linear,
or curvilinear?
10.
Does the paper explain why the variables will be related?
11.
As a reviewer of the article, can you think of any other reasons, beyond the reasons
offered by the authors, for why the variables will be related? For example, is there
another (unmeasured) third variable that influences variables that are measured, and
therefore accounts for why there is a relationship among the study variables?
IF MODERATORS…
12.
Does the hypothesis clearly state whether the moderator will strengthen or weaken the
variables, and which variable(s) will be affected?
13.
Does the paper explain why the moderator will affect other variable(s)?
14.
Does this explanation of why the moderator will affect other variables fit within the
larger theory or purpose of the paper? For example, are there clear arguments to support
the moderating hypothesis?
15.
16.
As a reviewer of the article, can you think of any other reasons, beyond the reasons
offered by the authors, for why the moderator will affect other variables?
As a reviewer of the article, can you think of any other variables that should have been
included in the present research to help clarify the predicted relationship among the
variables?
IF CAUSAL RESEARCH …
17.
Does the hypothesis clearly state the causal relationship? For example, which variables
serve as the predictor, mediator, and outcome?
18.
Does the paper explain why the mediator will affect other variable(s)?
19.
Does this explanation of why the mediator will affect other variables fit within the larger
theory or purpose of the paper? For example, are there clear arguments to support the
mediating hypothesis?
20.
As a reviewer of the article, can you think of any other reasons, beyond the reasons
offered by the authors, for why the mediator will affect other variables?
21.
As a reviewer of the article, can you think of any other variables that should have been
included in the present research to help clarify the predicted relationship among the
variables?
22.
If the predicted causal relationship involves more than three variables (e.g., more than
predictor, mediator, outcome), then has the relationship amongst all the variables been
clearly specified? Has the rationale for the causal model been explained? As a reviewer
of the article, can you think of any other reasons to account for the relationship amongst
the variables?