HRDQ Submissions of Quantitative Research Reports: Three Common Comments in Decision Letters and a Checklist

Over my tenure, I have reviewed hundreds of submissions to HRDQ and have attempted to address limitations I observed by contributing method-related editorials.In 2011, I wrote an editorial that considered the quality of quantitative research reports (Nimon, 2011 ).The 2011 editorial considered common issues related to reports of quantitative research including statistical assumptions (i.e., independence of observations, reliability of data), data analysis (i.e., measurement level, ecological validity, informed interpretation), and results (i.e., statistical and practical significance).Four years later, in Nimon and Astakhova ( 2015 ), we found that of the 63 quantitative articles reviewed, 100% included the reporting of an effect size or statistics that could be used to compute effect sizes.Only 5% of the applicable articles reviewed made no mention of reliability, which was in "stark contrast to Vacha-Haasee and Thompson ( 2011 ) who found that across 47 reliability generalization metaanalysis studies which represented 12,994 primary reports, 54.6% did not mention reliability" (Nimon & Astakhova, 2015 , p. 234).While the editorial from 2015 shows promising results for HRDQ authors' ability to report quantitative research in a rigorous manner that allow for subsequent meta-analyses, I often find myself commenting on the same issues when I review manuscripts submitted to HRDQ, many of which are not identified by reviewers.