The scientific method is the foundation of empirical investigations, wherein one or more independent variables are manipulated and one or more dependent measures are recorded. The researcher uses random assignment whenever possible or appropriate as well as a variety of control techniques to reduce threats to internal validity while balancing the need to for external validity. At least one hypothesis, often derived from a theoretical framework, is tested by means of quantifiable evidence. Many researchers also add qualitative forms of evidence to their overall analysis and synthesis of findings to support or refute a theory or hypothesis.

Reviewer Guidelines

  1. Is this manuscript appropriate for HAIB ? Explain. If it is not appropriate, can you suggest an alternate journal/publication to which the author should submit?
  2. Evaluate the abstract. Is it appropriate in length and information content? Does it provide a clear, but brief, description of the paper?
  3. Evaluate the introduction. Does it provide an appropriate background setting and foundation for the study? Was appropriate literature presented or are important elements/studies omitted? Does it flow logically and lead the reader directly to the study presented? If hypotheses are included, are they relevant, appropriate and logically derived?
  4. Evaluate the Method Section. Are all appropriate APA subsections included? Were the subjects sufficient in number, and appropriate in type, to the question under consideration? Is the procedure and methodology appropriate? Do you see in flaws in the design or problems with reliability and/or validity?
  5. Evaluate the Results. Were appropriate statistics used? Are the results clearly stated and in APA style?
  6. Evaluate the Discussion. Did the author(s) appropriately evaluate their results and were their conclusions reasonable and supported by the data?
  7. Evaluate References, Tables, Figures, and Appendices. Are they appropriate and/or necessary? Specifically, comment on the visual aspects, organization, and appearance, of any figures or tables included.
  8. In your opinion, was every precaution taken to insure the health and safety of all participants (both human and animal)? Was approval sought from an IRB and/or IACUC? Did participants provide informed consent to participate in the study?
  9. Evaluate the writing style of the paper.
  10. Evaluate the potential contribution of the paper to the field of HAI.
  11. Which of the following action decisions would you recommend regarding this paper?
    • Accept.
    • Accept with minor revisions.
    • Possibly accept, contingent upon major revisions.
    • Reject.

Please feel free to include any additional comments at the end of your review. If there are concerns that you would like to voice only to the co-editors of HAIB, please add a section labeled "For Editors Only" at the end of your review.

Print or download "Guidelines: Empirical Investigations"