# Reporting Research Findings

Psychology I · Research Techniques · https://tryals.app/learn/psychology-i/reporting-research-findings

## APA Style and Peer Review

Psychology conventionally follows **APA style**, structuring a research report into standard sections. Each part serves a distinct purpose in communicating the work clearly.

| Section | Content |
|---|---|
| **Abstract** | Brief summary of the whole study |
| **Introduction** | Background, theory, and hypotheses |
| **Method** | Exactly how the study was conducted |
| **Results** | The statistical findings |
| **Discussion** | Interpretation, limitations, implications |

Before publication, reputable journals use **peer review**: independent experts evaluate a manuscript's methods and conclusions. 

**Common pitfall:** treating peer review as automatic proof. Peer review checks quality, but **replication** is what ultimately builds confidence.

## The File-Drawer Problem

A persistent structural flaw is **publication bias**: studies with a statistically significant, positive result are much more likely to be published than well-designed null-result studies.

This creates the **file-drawer problem**: an unknown number of unpublished null results sitting in drawers, skewing the published literature to look more positive than reality.

Modern research addresses this through **preregistration**—publicly registering hypotheses and analysis plans before data collection.

Open-access publishing and open data further let researchers scrutinize and reuse materials directly, avoiding reliance solely on published summaries.

## Practice questions

7 of this lesson's 12 practice questions, with answers. The full set is in the app.

### 1. Sort each practice by whether it tends to worsen or to counter publication-related bias.

**Answer:**

- Worsens / reflects the bias: Journals favoring significant results over null results, Null-result studies staying in the file drawer
- Counters the bias: Preregistering hypotheses and analysis plans before data collection, Open-data sharing so others can scrutinize the analysis, Publishing well-designed null results too

**Why:** Favoring positives and shelving null results worsen publication bias; preregistration, open data, and publishing null results counter it. The reforms all work by making the full body of evidence visible, not just the significant slice.

Page: https://tryals.app/practice/psychology-i/reporting-research-findings/sort-each-practice-by-whether-it-tends-to-worsen-or-to-counter

### 2. Enough detail for an independent replication belongs in the Results section.

**Answer:** False

**Why:** False. It belongs in Method: Results report what was found, Method reports what was done. The replication crisis exposed how often Method sections omitted the exclusions and analytic choices that decided the outcome, which is exactly what preregistration now pins down in advance.

Page: https://tryals.app/practice/psychology-i/reporting-research-findings/enough-detail-for-an-independent-replication-belongs-in-the-results

### 3. A finding is peer-reviewed and published in a good journal. What has that process actually established?

A. That the study's conclusions are more likely true than false
B. That two or three experts saw no obvious fatal flaw
C. That the data have been independently checked and the analysis rerun
D. That the finding has been replicated by another laboratory

**Answer:** B. That two or three experts saw no obvious fatal flaw

**Why:** Reviewers read a manuscript. They rarely see raw data, never rerun the analysis, and cannot detect fabrication, so the filter catches obvious flaws and little else. That is why replication rather than publication is what settles a finding, and why 'peer-reviewed' is a floor rather than a verdict.

Page: https://tryals.app/practice/psychology-i/reporting-research-findings/a-finding-is-peer-reviewed-and-published-in-a-good-journal-what-has

### 4. Select every statement that is TRUE about reporting research.

A. Preregistration helps prevent selective reporting of results.
B. Publication bias favors significant results over null results.
C. The Method section should let others replicate the study.
D. Reviewers catch a great deal and are not in a position to catch everything.
E. A peer-reviewed finding is automatically correct.

**Answer:** A. Preregistration helps prevent selective reporting of results.; B. Publication bias favors significant results over null results.; C. The Method section should let others replicate the study.; D. Reviewers catch a great deal and are not in a position to catch everything.

**Why:** Peer review as an imperfect filter, publication bias, preregistration, and the Method's replicability role are all true. A peer-reviewed finding is not automatically correct - only replication builds that confidence, making it the one false option.

Page: https://tryals.app/practice/psychology-i/reporting-research-findings/select-every-statement-that-is-true-about-reporting-research

### 5. A researcher collects data, notices an unexpected pattern, and publishes it as the hypothesis the study set out to test. Every number reported is accurate. Why is this nonetheless a serious problem?

A. Because publishing exploratory findings is prohibited, and only preregistered hypotheses may appear in journals.
B. Because the p-value assumes a single pre-specified test.
C. Because the researcher must have made a computational error somewhere, since accurate data cannot produce a false result.
D. Because unexpected patterns in data are always artefacts and should be disregarded.

**Answer:** B. Because the p-value assumes a single pre-specified test.

**Why:** Nothing in the paper is numerically wrong, which is what makes it easy to rationalise; the falsehood is structural, presenting a posterior hypothesis as prior. A dataset offers many patterns and some are striking by chance, so choosing after the fact runs many tests while reporting one. Exploratory work is indispensable and needs only to be labelled.

Page: https://tryals.app/practice/psychology-i/reporting-research-findings/a-researcher-collects-data-notices-an-unexpected-pattern-and

### 6. Well-conducted studies finding nothing are much less likely to be published than studies finding an effect. Why does this distort the literature even when every individual study is faultless?

A. Because null results are usually caused by methodological errors, so publishing them would spread bad practice.
B. Because the published studies must have used larger samples, which is why they found effects.
C. Because a study finding no effect provides no information, so its absence changes nothing.
D. Because what gets published is then a biased sample of what was done.

**Answer:** D. Because what gets published is then a biased sample of what was done.

**Why:** The bias lives in the selection, not in any study: twenty honest tests of a non-existent effect yield about one significant result, and if that one is written up the literature shows unanimous support. No individual paper is at fault, which is why meta-analysis must test for the bias rather than pool what it can find.

Page: https://tryals.app/practice/psychology-i/reporting-research-findings/well-conducted-studies-finding-nothing-are-much-less-likely-to-be

### 7. Order the standard APA report sections as they appear in a paper.

**Answer:**

1. Abstract - a brief summary of the whole study
2. Introduction - background, theory, and hypotheses
3. Method - exactly how the study was conducted
4. Results - the statistical findings
5. Discussion - interpretation, limitations, and implications

**Why:** APA papers run abstract, introduction, method, results, discussion. Method must precede results (you describe how before what you found), and discussion comes last because it interprets results already reported.

Page: https://tryals.app/practice/psychology-i/reporting-research-findings/order-the-standard-apa-report-sections-as-they-appear-in-a-paper