Search across guide titles, topics, keywords, and content throughout the Researcher's Field Guide.
Showing 276–300 of 576 results
A report does not become unreliable simply because it was never peer reviewed, but you cannot assume that someone else has checked it for you. Evaluate its provenance, methods, data, transparency, potential bias, and the strength of the claims it actually supports.
Read Guide →Preprints can provide timely access to research before journal peer review, particularly in rapidly developing fields. Whether you should include them depends on your review purpose, eligibility criteria, and how carefully you manage their provisional and versioned status.
Read Guide →A language barrier does not automatically make an important research source unusable. Translation tools can help you determine relevance and sometimes understand substantial portions of a paper, but important methodological, numerical, or interpretive claims may require verification by a fluent reader or reliable human translation.
Read Guide →A paper belongs in your literature review because it helps answer the review question and meets the criteria appropriate to your review, not simply because it appeared in your search. Learn how to make inclusion decisions consistently and transparently.
Read Guide →Relevance and methodological quality answer different questions in a literature review. A study may be highly relevant yet methodologically weak, and whether that weakness warrants exclusion depends on the review design and criteria established in advance.
Read Guide →You rarely need to read every research paper from the first word to the last. Learn a practical multi-pass method for deciding what deserves attention, extracting the important evidence, and knowing when a paper requires a deeper read.
Read Guide →You rarely need to read every research paper from the first word to the last. The depth and order of your reading should depend on why you opened the paper and what you need to learn from it.
Read Guide →Not every paper you find deserves the same amount of attention. Screen its relevance first, then consider whether the evidence, methods, and role it may play in your research justify a deeper reading.
Read Guide →You do not need the same depth of understanding for every research paper you encounter. The more consequential the paper is to your argument, methodology, or interpretation, the more deeply you need to understand the parts on which you rely.
Read Guide →You do not need to scrutinize the methods of every paper during your first pass. Read them closely when your interpretation, citation, methodological decision, or confidence in a finding depends on how the evidence was produced.
Read Guide →You do not need to be a statistician to make sense of many statistical results. Start with the research question and comparison, then examine the effect estimate, its uncertainty, and what the analysis actually allows you to conclude.
Read Guide →You do not need to master every unfamiliar method before you can learn from a paper. First identify exactly what you do not understand, determine whether it matters to your purpose, and investigate it deeply enough to interpret the evidence responsibly.
Read Guide →Good research notes are not miniature copies of the papers you read. Record what you will need later: the study's question, relevant evidence, limitations, your interpretation, and why the paper matters to your research.
Read Guide →Do not extract everything simply because it appears in the paper. Capture the study's question, context, design, sample or data, relevant measures or procedures, findings, limitations, and why the study matters to your research.
Read Guide →Critical appraisal is more than finding limitations. Learn how to judge whether a study asked a worthwhile question, used appropriate methods, produced credible results, and made conclusions the evidence can actually support.
Read Guide →Yes. Publication in a prestigious journal can be a useful signal about selectivity and scholarly attention, but it does not guarantee that an individual study is methodologically strong or that its conclusions are justified.
Read Guide →Every study has limitations, but not every limitation invalidates its findings. The key question is whether a methodological problem merely weakens or narrows an inference, or prevents the study from supporting its central claim at all.
Read Guide →A well-executed study can still answer the wrong question. Evaluate whether the design produces the kind of evidence required by the research question before deciding how much confidence to place in its conclusions.
Read Guide →An appropriate sample is not simply a large one. Judge whether the people, cases, records, or other units studied are suitable for the research question, how they were selected, who may be missing, and how far the resulting evidence can reasonably be generalized.
Read Guide →A causal claim says more than two variables are associated. It says changing one would change the other. Evaluate whether the study establishes temporal order, provides a credible comparison, addresses confounding and selection, measures the relevant variables adequately, and rules out plausible alternative explanations.
Read Guide →A small sample may reduce statistical power or precision, but sample size cannot be judged in isolation. What matters is whether the sample is adequate for the research question, design, analysis, and claims being made.
Read Guide →A large sample can improve statistical power and precision, but size alone does not make evidence trustworthy. Sampling, measurement, design, analysis, and the claims being made still determine what the data can support.
Read Guide →Good mixed-methods research is more than a quantitative study and a qualitative study placed in the same paper. Each component should be rigorous, but the crucial question is whether combining them produces an integrated understanding that neither could provide as effectively alone.
Read Guide →Discovering serious problems in an important paper does not automatically tell you what to do next. Verify the problem, determine which claims it affects, reassess the surrounding evidence, and revise your own conclusions in proportion to the damage.
Read Guide →Research studies do not always reach the same conclusion, and disagreement does not automatically mean that one study is wrong. Learn how to compare apparently conflicting findings and judge what the wider body of evidence actually supports.
Read Guide →