RESEARCH METHODS EXAM 4 EXAM PREP
2026 Q&A COMPLETE REVIEW WITH
ACCURATE ANSWERS GUARANTEED PASS
◉ does peer review enforce orthodoxy?
Answer: Rosalyn Yalow, 1977 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine:
"In 1955 we submitted the paper to Science. ... The paper was held
there for eight months before it was reviewed. It was finally rejected.
We submitted it to the Journal of Clinical Investigations, which also
rejected it."
◉ does peer review enforce orthodoxy? pt 2
Answer: Mitchell Feigenbaum, pioneer of chaos theory:
"Both papers were rejected, the first after a half-year delay. By then,
in 1977, over a thousand copies of the first preprint had been
shipped. This has been my full experience. Papers on established
subjects are immediately accepted. Every novel paper of mine,
without exception, has been rejected by the refereeing process. The
reader can easily gather that I regard this entire process as a false
guardian and wastefully dishonest."
◉ does peer review enforce orthodoxy? pt 3
,Answer: Tuzo Wilson, developed the theory of Hawaiian island
formation:
"I ... sent [my paper] to the Journal of Geophysical Research. They
turned it down. ... They said my paper had no mathematics in it, no
new data, and that it didn't agree with the current views. Therefore,
it must be no good. Apparently, whether one gets turned down or
not depends largely on the reviewer. The editors, too, if they don't
see it your way, or if they think it's something unusual, may turn it
down."
◉ is peer review reliable?
Answer: - rates of agreement only "moderately better than chance"
(kappa = 0.26)
- agreement greater for rejection than acceptance
◉ grant review
Answer: Hodgson 1997 - two real panels reviewing the same grants,
73% agreement
◉ are two reviewers enough?
Answer: fletcher & fletcher 1999 - need at least 6 reviewers, all
favoring rejection or acceptance to yield a stats significant
conclusion (p<0.05)
◉ the replication crisis
, Answer: - Statistical 'findings' disappear when others look for them.
- Beyond the social sciences to genomics, bioinformatics, and
medicine (Big Data)
- Methodological reforms (some welcome, others radical)
◉ American Statistical Association (ASA):Statement on P-values
Answer: "The statistical community has been deeply concerned
about issues of reproducibility and replicability of scientific
conclusions. .... much confusion and even doubt about the validity of
science is arising. Such doubt can lead to radical choices such as...to
ban p-values" (ASA, Wasserstein & Lazar 2016, p. 129)
◉ reasons for the replicability crisis
Answer: - Errors
- Fraud (Researchers p-hacking, Fake data)
- Publication bias by researchers
- Publication bias by journals
◉ cases of fraud
Answer: - Diederik Stapel
-award-winning social psychologist.
- 137 published papers.
- 54 retracted to date.
2026 Q&A COMPLETE REVIEW WITH
ACCURATE ANSWERS GUARANTEED PASS
◉ does peer review enforce orthodoxy?
Answer: Rosalyn Yalow, 1977 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine:
"In 1955 we submitted the paper to Science. ... The paper was held
there for eight months before it was reviewed. It was finally rejected.
We submitted it to the Journal of Clinical Investigations, which also
rejected it."
◉ does peer review enforce orthodoxy? pt 2
Answer: Mitchell Feigenbaum, pioneer of chaos theory:
"Both papers were rejected, the first after a half-year delay. By then,
in 1977, over a thousand copies of the first preprint had been
shipped. This has been my full experience. Papers on established
subjects are immediately accepted. Every novel paper of mine,
without exception, has been rejected by the refereeing process. The
reader can easily gather that I regard this entire process as a false
guardian and wastefully dishonest."
◉ does peer review enforce orthodoxy? pt 3
,Answer: Tuzo Wilson, developed the theory of Hawaiian island
formation:
"I ... sent [my paper] to the Journal of Geophysical Research. They
turned it down. ... They said my paper had no mathematics in it, no
new data, and that it didn't agree with the current views. Therefore,
it must be no good. Apparently, whether one gets turned down or
not depends largely on the reviewer. The editors, too, if they don't
see it your way, or if they think it's something unusual, may turn it
down."
◉ is peer review reliable?
Answer: - rates of agreement only "moderately better than chance"
(kappa = 0.26)
- agreement greater for rejection than acceptance
◉ grant review
Answer: Hodgson 1997 - two real panels reviewing the same grants,
73% agreement
◉ are two reviewers enough?
Answer: fletcher & fletcher 1999 - need at least 6 reviewers, all
favoring rejection or acceptance to yield a stats significant
conclusion (p<0.05)
◉ the replication crisis
, Answer: - Statistical 'findings' disappear when others look for them.
- Beyond the social sciences to genomics, bioinformatics, and
medicine (Big Data)
- Methodological reforms (some welcome, others radical)
◉ American Statistical Association (ASA):Statement on P-values
Answer: "The statistical community has been deeply concerned
about issues of reproducibility and replicability of scientific
conclusions. .... much confusion and even doubt about the validity of
science is arising. Such doubt can lead to radical choices such as...to
ban p-values" (ASA, Wasserstein & Lazar 2016, p. 129)
◉ reasons for the replicability crisis
Answer: - Errors
- Fraud (Researchers p-hacking, Fake data)
- Publication bias by researchers
- Publication bias by journals
◉ cases of fraud
Answer: - Diederik Stapel
-award-winning social psychologist.
- 137 published papers.
- 54 retracted to date.
