What Makes Research Methodologically Defensible?
Research is rarely evaluated on whether it follows a single correct path. Instead, it is judged on whether methodological decisions are coherent, justified, and appropriate for the research context. This post explains what makes research methodologically defensible across review settings.
When Reviewers Disagree: Navigating Conflicting Research Feedback
Conflicting feedback from reviewers is common across research contexts. This post explains why disagreement occurs, how to distinguish preferences from substantive concerns, and how to respond strategically without redesigning the study.
Responding to Methodological Critique Without Redesigning the Study
Methodological critique often feels like a call to start over. In practice, most feedback can be addressed through clearer justification, alignment, and explanation rather than redesigning the study. This post explains how to respond strategically.
Ethical Research Support: Where Guidance Ends and Authorship Begins
As researchers seek methodological and analytic support, ethical questions about authorship and responsibility often arise. This post explains where appropriate research guidance ends and where authorship and accountability begin.
Power, Sample Size, and Feasibility in Real-World Research
Power and sample size decisions in real-world research are shaped by feasibility, access, and constraints. This post explains how evaluators assess these decisions and how transparency and alignment support defensible research design.