Skills

Psychology Research Report with Peer Review

12 weeks · 0 milestones

Write a complete psychology research report in IMRaD format (Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion) and submit it to a structured peer review process — a university journal, a conference submission system, or a structured departmental peer review with at least two independent reviewers. Proof is the submitted report, the documented reviewer feedback received, and your written revision response explaining what you changed and why (or why you disagreed with a specific critique). At least one substantive methodological comment must be addressed in your revision. The peer review system is the adversarial verification: independent reviewers who challenge your methodology are the required assessors.

Part of: Social Sciences, Law & Humanities · Proves for: UG

Milestone map

3 milestones

Conduct the pre-registered analysis and interpret results

4 weeks

Conduct the pre-registered analysis on the collected data following the OSF pre-registration. Report results in APA format: descriptive statistics, primary analysis results (with effect sizes and confidence intervals, not just p-values), and any pre-registered secondary analyses. If the results differ from hypotheses, address this directly — null results and unexpected findings are valid research outcomes. Include a discussion section interpreting the findings in relation to the theoretical rationale stated in the pre-registration.

Proof required

Results and discussion document (700+ words) in APA format covering: descriptive statistics, primary analysis results with effect sizes and confidence intervals, discussion of findings in relation to pre-registered hypotheses, and direct address of null or unexpected results if present.

What gets checked

Results reported with effect sizes and confidence intervals — not just p-values
Null or unexpected results are addressed directly — not silently omitted
Discussion interprets findings in relation to the pre-registered theoretical rationale

Common mistakes

Reporting only statistically significant results and treating null results as failures — null results are valid scientific findings that must be reported
Reporting p-values without effect sizes — effect sizes are required for meaningful interpretation
Discussion that reaches beyond the data — conclusions must be grounded in what the analysis actually shows

Powstik Guide

A 700-word APA results and discussion section.

Steps

Report descriptives first.
Run the pre-registered analysis.
Report effect sizes.
Flag exploratory analyses separately.

Template

Descriptives:
Primary analysis:
Effect size:
Exploratory:
Discussion:

What gets sent back

Under 700 words.
Sources uncited.
Hypothetical instead of real.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

What a verifier looks for

Check results reporting — confirm effect sizes and confidence intervals are present alongside p-values
Review null/unexpected results — confirm they are addressed directly if present
Check discussion — confirm it is grounded in the actual analysis results

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Write a full research report and identify limitations and future directions

4 weeks

Write a complete APA-format research report: abstract, introduction (theoretical rationale + literature review), methods, results, and discussion — including limitations section and future directions. The limitations section must address specific limitations of this study's design and sample — not generic psychology research limitations. The future directions must be grounded in the specific gaps this study created or highlighted.

Proof required

Full research report in APA format (2000+ words) covering all sections including a limitations section addressing at least three specific limitations of this study's design and sample, and a future directions section grounded in the specific gaps this study created or highlighted.

What gets checked

Report is in APA format with all standard sections present
Limitations section addresses at least three specific limitations — not generic research limitations
Future directions are grounded in this study's specific gaps — not generic calls for more research

Common mistakes

Generic limitations section — 'sample was not representative' is only a limitation if explained specifically for this study's sample and design
Future directions that are generic — 'further research is needed' is not a future direction
Discussion that does not engage with the pre-registered hypotheses — the pre-registration is the framework for interpreting results

Powstik Guide

A full APA-format report with specific limitations.

Steps

Draft methods and results first, then the introduction.
Report every pre-registered hypothesis, supported or not.
Give effect sizes and intervals, not only p-values.
Write three limits specific to this sample and design.
Tie future work to gaps this study exposed.

Template

Sections: Abstract · Introduction · Method · Results · Discussion · References

| Hypothesis | Supported? | Effect size (CI) |
|------------|------------|------------------|
Limitations (specific):
Future directions (from this study's gaps):

What gets sent back

Generic limitations.
'Further research is needed' as future work.
Pre-registered hypotheses skipped.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

Masteryfor the dedicated

What a verifier looks for

Check APA format — confirm all standard sections are present
Review limitations — confirm at least three are specific to this study's design and sample
Check future directions — confirm they are grounded in this study's specific gaps

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Defend research report under psychologist or researcher peer review

1 week

Submit the research report for peer review by a registered psychologist, psychology academic, or quantitative methods researcher. The reviewer must challenge methods and interpretation — 'your effect size is small enough that the practical significance is questionable — how do you address that?', 'your limitations section identifies selection bias but your discussion doesn't address how it affects conclusions — why not?'. Peer-only verification is never sufficient for this outcome. This Q&A satisfies the ADVERSARIAL VERIFICATION RULE.

Proof required

Q&A notes (250+ words) documenting the reviewer's credentials (registered psychologist, psychology academic, or quantitative methods researcher), at least three specific challenges to methods or interpretation with responses, and any report revisions committed to.

What gets checked

Reviewer is a registered psychologist, psychology academic, or quantitative methods researcher — peer verification is not acceptable
At least three specific challenges to methods or interpretation are documented
At least one report revision is committed to based on the review

Common mistakes

Using a peer verifier instead of a registered psychologist or psychology researcher
Not being able to explain why a specific limitation does not invalidate a key conclusion under challenge
No report revisions after a genuine peer review challenge

Powstik Guide

Your report, peer-reviewed by a psychology researcher.

Steps

Check whether your sample had enough power.
Prepare why each limitation doesn't sink the main claim.
Book a registered psychologist or methods researcher.
Ask for three challenges to methods and interpretation.

Template

Challenge session log
Date:            Duration:
Reviewer name:
Reviewer role and credentials:

Challenge 1 (methods or interpretation):
  What they asked:
  My answer:
  Did it hold?
Challenge 2:
  What they asked:
  My answer:
  Did it hold?
Challenge 3:
  What they asked:
  My answer:
  Did it hold?

Update I am committing to:

What gets sent back

A peer reviewer.
No defence of a key conclusion.
No revision after review.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

What a verifier looks for

Confirm reviewer is a registered psychologist, psychology academic, or quantitative methods researcher
Review Q&A notes — confirm at least three specific challenges to methods or interpretation are documented
Check that at least one report revision is committed to

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Part of

Prove Your Psychology Chops →

Related outcomes

Milestone map

3 milestones

Conduct the pre-registered analysis and interpret results

4 weeks

Proof required

What gets checked

Results reported with effect sizes and confidence intervals — not just p-values
Null or unexpected results are addressed directly — not silently omitted
Discussion interprets findings in relation to the pre-registered theoretical rationale

Common mistakes

Reporting only statistically significant results and treating null results as failures — null results are valid scientific findings that must be reported
Reporting p-values without effect sizes — effect sizes are required for meaningful interpretation
Discussion that reaches beyond the data — conclusions must be grounded in what the analysis actually shows

Powstik Guide

A 700-word APA results and discussion section.

Steps

Report descriptives first.
Run the pre-registered analysis.
Report effect sizes.
Flag exploratory analyses separately.

Template

Descriptives:
Primary analysis:
Effect size:
Exploratory:
Discussion:

What gets sent back

Under 700 words.
Sources uncited.
Hypothetical instead of real.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

What a verifier looks for

Check results reporting — confirm effect sizes and confidence intervals are present alongside p-values
Review null/unexpected results — confirm they are addressed directly if present
Check discussion — confirm it is grounded in the actual analysis results

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Write a full research report and identify limitations and future directions

4 weeks

Proof required

What gets checked

Report is in APA format with all standard sections present
Limitations section addresses at least three specific limitations — not generic research limitations
Future directions are grounded in this study's specific gaps — not generic calls for more research

Common mistakes

Generic limitations section — 'sample was not representative' is only a limitation if explained specifically for this study's sample and design
Future directions that are generic — 'further research is needed' is not a future direction
Discussion that does not engage with the pre-registered hypotheses — the pre-registration is the framework for interpreting results

Powstik Guide

A full APA-format report with specific limitations.

Steps

Draft methods and results first, then the introduction.
Report every pre-registered hypothesis, supported or not.
Give effect sizes and intervals, not only p-values.
Write three limits specific to this sample and design.
Tie future work to gaps this study exposed.

Template

Sections: Abstract · Introduction · Method · Results · Discussion · References

| Hypothesis | Supported? | Effect size (CI) |
|------------|------------|------------------|
Limitations (specific):
Future directions (from this study's gaps):

What gets sent back

Generic limitations.
'Further research is needed' as future work.
Pre-registered hypotheses skipped.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

Masteryfor the dedicated

What a verifier looks for

Check APA format — confirm all standard sections are present
Review limitations — confirm at least three are specific to this study's design and sample
Check future directions — confirm they are grounded in this study's specific gaps

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Defend research report under psychologist or researcher peer review

1 week

Proof required

What gets checked

Reviewer is a registered psychologist, psychology academic, or quantitative methods researcher — peer verification is not acceptable
At least three specific challenges to methods or interpretation are documented
At least one report revision is committed to based on the review

Common mistakes

Using a peer verifier instead of a registered psychologist or psychology researcher
Not being able to explain why a specific limitation does not invalidate a key conclusion under challenge
No report revisions after a genuine peer review challenge

Powstik Guide

Your report, peer-reviewed by a psychology researcher.

Steps

Check whether your sample had enough power.
Prepare why each limitation doesn't sink the main claim.
Book a registered psychologist or methods researcher.
Ask for three challenges to methods and interpretation.

Template

Challenge session log
Date:            Duration:
Reviewer name:
Reviewer role and credentials:

Challenge 1 (methods or interpretation):
  What they asked:
  My answer:
  Did it hold?
Challenge 2:
  What they asked:
  My answer:
  Did it hold?
Challenge 3:
  What they asked:
  My answer:
  Did it hold?

Update I am committing to:

What gets sent back

A peer reviewer.
No defence of a key conclusion.
No revision after review.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

What a verifier looks for

Confirm reviewer is a registered psychologist, psychology academic, or quantitative methods researcher
Review Q&A notes — confirm at least three specific challenges to methods or interpretation are documented
Check that at least one report revision is committed to

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.