Chapter 16 Exam Questions Publishing Your Research

Test bank questions

1. What sections should be included on a poster that you present at a conference? What types of presentations should you prepare?
2. Identify 3 different presentation formats at a conference and briefly describe what they entail.
3. Provide two issues that relate to how the review process is imperfect.
4. Identify two factors that should influence your decision on where to submit your manuscript for publication.
5. Describe two objectives you can strive for to increase the chances of getting your manuscript accepted.
6. Short talks that last less than 10 minutes involving only a few slides on key findings are generally called…
7. oral presentations.
8. paper blitzes.
9. data blitzes.
10. symposiums.
11. When presenting a poster, it is generally a good idea to prepare which of the following?
12. A short and brief description as that is all your audience will have time for.
13. A relatively long presentation since the audience will likely all have time to stand and read your poster in detail.
14. Three formats: a short version, a medium version, and a longer version of your presentation.
15. All the possible questions that your audience might ask, since that is all you can prepare for.
16. For very specific research that might only attract a narrow breadth of audience, which of the following might be the best options to get critical feedback?
17. Submit your work for publication at a journal that attracts a wide audience, such as Psychological Science.
18. Submit your work to a specialized conference.
19. Submit your work to a general conference.
20. Submit your work to an undergraduate conference with a wide audience.
21. Which of the following is true regarding submissions to conferences?
22. You should generally submit to the lowest status conference since you will get the largest audience base to give you feedback.
23. You should generally try submitting to the highest status conference you can.
24. Conferences don’t really have a broad range of statuses, so submitting to the closest one is always the best option.
25. Conferences are highly specialized and there are no conferences for broad audiences. Therefore, it is really easy to decide which conference to submit to.
26. The sixth edition of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association provides information on…
27. organization of content.
28. how to format your paper.
29. writing style.
30. all of the above.
31. Journals’ impact factors measures…
32. the rate at which publications in the journals are considered to be highly valid.
33. the rate at which other researchers cite papers from the journal.
34. the amount of researchers who publish in the journal who are considered “highly impactful.”
35. The number of impacts the journal publications makes in the media.
36. When writing for the journals Nature or Science, it is generally true that…
37. you will be evaluated by and writing for experts in your particular field.
38. you will be evaluated by only the editor since he or she is well-versed in all areas of science.
39. you will be writing for a broader audience and the style is often different from submitting to a more specialized journal.
40. you will be evaluated by at least six reviewers and two editors over two rounds of revisions because these journals only publish the best of the best.
41. Journal citation reports serve which of the following purposes?
42. They are like impact factors but take into account journals indexed in the Web of Science.
43. They are like impact factors, but instead focus on the author’s rankings instead of the publication’s rankings.
44. They are like impact factors, but take into account the number of authors on a publication.
45. They are like journal rankings, and also take into account how difficult the studies were to conduct.
46. Which of the following best describes an editorial board?
47. It consists of non-researchers who help the journal make financial and executive decisions.
48. It consists of researchers who assist with administrative tasks, such as editing, printing, and organization, for the journal.
49. It consists of researchers who play a role in deciding which submissions get accepted and which ones get rejected.
50. It consists of community members who assess the readability of the journal for the general public.
51. When preparing a submission to the manuscript, you should include a cover letter that serves the purpose to…
52. describe your procedure in detail.
53. briefly discuss why the journal is a good fit.
54. present a description of the background literature and what the field has already accomplished to situate your research in the context of existing work.
55. tell the editor whether or not you think reviewers are necessary for your submission.
56. In general, to maximize your chances of getting your paper ultimately accepted, you should…
57. ask the editors for only 1 reviewer.
58. explain to the editor why you think the journal is a good fit by including it in the introduction of your paper.
59. take reviewer comments and feedback seriously when revising your paper.
60. select the most valuable comments and only use those to ensure that you are being selective.
61. If you do not agree with a reviewer’s feedback for a specific change or revision, what should you do?
62. Make the change anyway because you have no choice.
63. Make the change and explain in the manuscript that the change was due to a reviewer’s remark so your audience knows what the reviewer’s comments entailed.
64. Contact the reviewer and ask why the change was recommended.
65. You may choose to not make a change, but should convincingly articulate your reason to the editor in charge.
66. Kevin is working on a manuscript with a revise and re-submit for further consideration status. He is only accepting feedback that he agrees with. He thinks that the reviewers are wrong and misunderstood parts of the manuscript. Which of the following is likely to occur?
67. It is almost certain that Kevin’s revisions will lead his manuscript to be rejected.
68. It is almost certain that Kevin’s revisions will still be accepted because the editor sides with the author.
69. Kevin would need to make clear and reasonable arguments for why he is not accepting certain requests for changes or feedback from the reviewers to increase his chances of getting his paper published.
70. Kevin would need to make arguments for why he is not accepting reviewer comments and feedback, but this is not likely to change his chances of getting the manuscript published.
71. Which of the following is not a reason why the review process is imperfect?
72. Sometimes, fraud is not detectable at the review stage.
73. Generally, reviewers give critical comments that make the publication stronger.
74. Sometimes, editors might select poor reviewers for a manuscript.
75. Generally, the review process can take some time.
76. A reason why fraud is hard to detect is because…
77. reviewers are not experts in the specific field.
78. editors are not experts in the specific field.
79. reviewers generally do not look at the results section and take the findings for face value.
80. reviewers often don’t have access to the raw data.
81. Not all problems with data in manuscripts come from authors committing fraud. It can also be…
82. data entry or management errors.
83. reviewer fraud.
84. editors misinterpreting findings.
85. authors’ predictions being contradicted.
86. Jill is working on a senior honor’s thesis and has collected almost all her data but is in the preliminary stages of her data analysis. Her first set of analyses has yielded consistent results. One of the biggest conferences in her field is coming up and the deadline is very soon. Although Jill has not completed her project yet, the data collection and analyses will be complete before the conference is to start. Which of the following is most appropriate?
87. Jill should submit her preliminary analyses as a poster presentation as preliminary findings can be submitted to conferences.
88. Jill should submit her preliminary analyses as a publication to a journal as preliminary findings can be submitted for publication.
89. Jill should wait for the next time the conference meets.
90. Jill should submit her preliminary analyses as a keynote address as preliminary findings can be submitted to conferences.
91. A(n) ____________________ is one of the most common formats for a presentation at a conference, but being part of a(n) _____________________ is seen as more prestigious.
92. oral presentation; poster presentation
93. keynote address; oral presentation
94. poster presentation; symposium
95. symposium; poster presentation
96. One of the most important factors to consider when submitting to a conference is…
97. where the conference is meeting that year.
98. who the anticipated audience will be.
99. the number of attendees expected.
100. how many coauthors you have.
101. The editor is likely to send your manuscript out for review if…
102. there are enough reviewers that they can pay to review your work.
103. the match between your manuscript and the scope of the journal is strong.
104. your manuscript has more than one author.
105. reviewers like you.
106. Which of the following about the submission process is true?
107. You only need to address feedback from reviewers as you see fit for your research.
108. Receiving a “revise and resubmit” is not very meaningful. In fact, you are very likely to get rejected in the second round even if you address all the changes that the reviewers suggested.
109. Receiving a “revise and resubmit” decision is not necessarily a negative outcome. In fact, it is an opportunity to significantly improve your manuscript.
110. Reviewers generally don’t mind if you don’t use the APA format in psychology. Editors are still going to consider your paper and give you constructive feedback, as long as you get it right by the time the paper is accepted for publication.
111. Posters presentations include _______________ of the sections found in a formal paper, and generally should present data _________________.
112. some; in text format
113. all; in text format
114. none; visually
115. all; visually
116. When reviewing a paper, reviewers are tasked with __________________ and ________________.
117. checking the raw data; making a decision for the editor on whether the paper should be accepted
118. providing the authors with feedback; making a suggestion to the editor with a decision on whether the manuscript should be accepted
119. checking the raw data; providing authors with feedback
120. contacting the authors; providing the editor with feedback
121. An outcome of the review process being imperfect is that it requires…
122. editors who have a broad and deep perspective on the field.
123. reviewers who are willing to review papers for a cheap price.
124. editors who have a lot of controversial ideas.
125. reviewers who have relatively little experience to be more objective.
126. Which of the following is true about journal rankings?
127. They change only every five years when the rankings are re-evaluated.
128. They should be the most important determining factor for where you submit your work.
129. They vary depending if psychology and psychiatry journals are combined into the rankings.
130. Non-scientist members of the community rank them.

1. A journal’s impact factor changes from year to year.

2. Rejection letters for a manuscript tend to be much longer in length than a letter asking for a revise and resubmit.

3. One of the most important factor to consider when selecting a journal to submit to is how well your research matches the scope of the journal.

4. APA has a conference that draws in specialized researchers in the field of clinical psychologists, at around 2,000 researchers per year.

5. Journal impact factors are most useful when you compare journals from different fields.

6. Many of the high status journals such as Science or Nature target broad audiences and require authors to write short reports that are still clear.

7. Your target audience is less important for conferences than for publications, as unlike journals, all conferences are attended by a broad range of audiences.

8. If you do not format your manuscript correctly (e.g., using APA format for psychology), editors will review your articles, and then send it back asking for revisions and that you format your journal using the appropriate format.

9. Upon receiving page proofs, you should only be making minor changes and edits such as fixing typos and not making major revisions to your manuscript.

12. Rankings are important but should not be the main determinant of whether you submit to a journal. Rather, the match between your work and the journal is often more important.

13. At large conferences, there are generally one presidential address but there can often be multiple keynote addresses.

14. Reviewers can provide constructive comments, but they can also sometimes provide aggressive and hostile responses that are overly critical.

15. When issues of fraud occur in the context of making up data or having errors in the data, it is generally because the reviewers were not paying attention and did a poor job during the review process.