c c c c c c c c c c c c c 1
As your peer, I appreciate the opportunity to review your article before its
publication. In reviewing your writing, you have a couple of strengths and
weaknesses that I have identified and would like to bring to your attention. In
discussing your strengths, first, you provided adequate data on how c your research
was conducted, you made it very easy to follow and understand. Your second
strength is you also provided adequate data showing the inconsistencies in the
previous study and how it supported your nonsignificant results. However, I did
notice a couple of weaknesses in your article. First you failed to use scientific
language when presenting your hypothesis. You stated “the null hypothesis is
correct”, when the verbiage taht is most commonly stated c is “we failed to reject
the null hypothesis”. Also in your discussion you stated that there was “no proof”
which in the social sciences we do not aim to show cause and effect or prove a
theory. Instead of saying “no proof” you could have said “ no correlation”. Second,
your Table is not APA formatted. The title should be under the table number and
the table should be in black and white or gray scale, no grid lines and no color;
see Section 7.9 c (American Psychological Association, c 2020, p. 199, 215-216).
Third, Figure 1 is not APA formatted. The graph should also be in black and
white, or gray scale which includes the dots. The title should also be under neath
the c words Figure 1; ; see section 7.23 (American Psychological Association, 2020,
p. 225). Lastly, your discussion section heading should be Level 1 which is center
as well as being bold; see Section 2.27 (American Psychological Association, 2020,
p. 47). c I hope these minor corrections were helpful. You explained your
demographic question well, and you also explained what demographics
specifically were not included in the analysis, so the reader better
c c c c c c c c c c c c c 2
understands your study. The second strength that I would love to point out
is your use of SPSS. I enjoyed your scatterplot figure, as those can be hard
to get correct, since you have to remember to name the axis and continue a
few extra steps in SPSS to retain an accurate scatterplot such as yours.
I believe the relevance or your articles in your discussion was clear, as your
related them well with your current study and how past research could be
used to further research on the discussion at hand.
You did use appropriate terms throughout the paper, such as how you said
you used Pearson's correlation to test your hypothesis.
The first weakness that I see in your paper is the formatting of your table.
The title of the table should be below the table number, and it should be in
italic title case with a double space between the table number and title, as
per typical APA format (American Psychological Association, 2020). The table
itself appears to be copy and pasted from your SPSS output, but it is not
put into APA format as presented by Dr. Megan St. Peters (2022) in this
past week's video. The second weakness that I see is your APA write up as
shown correctly in week one's video on Correlation and Regression in SPSS
(St. Peters, 2022). I see you included the degrees of freedom, the r value,
and the p value, but they are not written in the correct fashion, such as r
(n) = r value, p = p value (one/two-tailed). You also did not indicate whether
the test was one or two tailed in your APA write up of the results, nor did
I see a coefficient of determination written there. The third weakness I
observed was the lack of in test citations. Even if you think you are
sounding redundant by repeating a citation, it is required every single time
you mention anything from an outside source, or article. For example, the
paragraph where you mention the article from "King et al (2022)", you start
out with a great in text citation, but the rest of the paragraph does not
show any more. After, or within, each sentence that is summarizing the
article should have a citation somewhere within it.
One strength of your paper is that you incorporated substantial research to
point out the varied inconsistencies in research so far. Another strength is that you
provided your results and interpreted them well, as well as your limitations. One
thing to improve would to be careful of run-on sentences in your Discussion
section. Next, in your Results section, you state that there is a negative correlation
c c c c c c c c c c c c c 3
between the variables but then state the null hypothesis is correct. An inverse
correlation is still a correlation. If there is no correlation, make sure to state that.
Also, you would fail to reject the null hypothesis instead of saying it is right. It is
very interesting that your sample was all active-duty sailors
REFERENCES
American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication Manual of the American
Psychological Association (7th ed.). https://doi.org/10.1037/0000165-000
St. Peters, M. (2022). Correlation and Regression in SPSS. Research Methods
and
c c c Statistics in Psychology II. Retrieved April 24, 2022, from
c c c https://canvas.liberty.edu/courses/336469/modules
St. Peters, M. (2022). Scientific Writing: Results and Discussion. Research
Methods and
c c c Statistics in Psychology II. Retrieved April 24, 2022, from
c c c https://canvas.liberty.edu/courses/336469/modules
