HMPYC80/102/2024/Research Review Inventory (R.R.I.

3): Review Log

Resource material 02
Research Review Inventory (R.R.I.3): Review Log

The Research Review Inventory version 3 (R.R.I.3) is provided in Resource Material 01 in this
Tutorial Letter 102. All 58 items of the R.R.I.3 are used to review an article or completed
research report. However, only the first 45 items of the R.R.I.3 are used to review a proposal.

Items should be reviewed and rated on a three-point rating scale from 1 to 3. The ratings are
defined as follows:
1 (or A): Absent, incorrect, or completely wrong.
2 (or B): Only partially addressed. It does not attain the item requirement(s) or
criterion/criteria.
3 (or C): Sufficiently up to standard in terms of the item criteria.

Each item should be reviewed and rated on the above three-point scale (1 to 3) or (A to C).

Remember, if the item criterion is not explicitly addressed then you may not allocate the
highest rating of 3. Good academic writing is clear and transparent. When a reader needs to
guess whether an issue has been implemented and addressed or not, then the writing is neither
clear nor transparent! Only give the highest rating if the item criteria have been explicitly
satisfied.

Review Log for the Research Review Inventory 3 (R.R.I.3)

Title of document (proposal/article/manuscript): …

Author(s) surname and initials or student number: …
Rated by (your details as a reviewer): …
.
m
Date of the review: …
Item Rate Rating item (R.R.I.3) Justification of
1/2/3 your rating

01 1, 2, 01. The title contains at least one central psychological concept or … explain the
or concept or construct from the research proposal or study. rating that you
3? allocated for this
criterion.

02 . 02. The title indicates the research setting or demographic

information of the sample population. Any one of the following is
.
sufficient: where, who, when, under what circumstances, or the
phenomenon that is being investigated.

03 . 03. The title points to, or refers to, the research method, design, or
paradigm. This may be signalled by a keyword or phrase such as:
.
“lived experiences”, “perceptions”, “attitudes”, “constructions”,
“discourses”, “quasi-experimental”, “critical study”, “psychometric
properties”, “correlational study”, “inferential study”, and so on.
 04 . 04. The abstract indicates the research interest, issue, or problem. .

05 . 05. The abstract indicates the setting, demographic, or .

circumstances pertaining to the research interest or question. Any
one of the following is sufficient: where, who, when, under what
circumstances, or the phenomenon that is being investigated.

06 . 06. The abstract contains the specific research question or .

research statement.

07 . 07. The abstract indicates the key theoretical perspective(s) that is .

(are) used in the literature.

08 .. 08. The abstract specifies the (proposed) research method, study .

type, or research design.

09 . 09. The abstract indicates the (proposed) data collection method. .

10 . 10. The abstract describes the (proposed) population sample, and .

sampling strategy or approach.

11 . 11. The abstract indicates the (proposed) data analysis method or .

technique.

12 . 12. For completed research projects only: the abstract succinctly .

lists the actual findings of the study, and states how the study
answers, addresses, or illuminates the research issue or question.
(Proposals will receive a “1” for this item as the actual research
has not yet been performed.)

13 . 13. The list of keywords contains at least (a) one key .

psychological concept or construct and (b) one key reference to a
psychological theory.

14 . 14. The list of keywords indicates the research setting and .

demographic information of the sample.

Any two of the following is sufficient: where, when, who, under

what circumstances, or the phenomenon that is being investigated.

15 . 15. The list of keywords indicates the research method, study .

type, or research design. (This may be indicated directly or
indirectly by phrases such as: “lived experiences”, “perceptions”,
“attitudes”, “constructions”, “discourses”, “quasi-experimental”,
“critical study”, “psychometric properties”, “correlational study”,
“inferential study”, and so on.)

16 . 16. The context (who, what, where, how, how come, when) of the .
research issue is clearly described.

(Note that this rating issue can be addressed anywhere in the

proposal or article, including the conclusion.)

17 . 17. The key concepts of the study have been defined or .

delineated. Key concepts include the core ideas that are indicated
2
 HMPYC80/102/2024/Research Review Inventory (R.R.I.3): Review Log

in the title and in the research question (such as biographic

concepts, demographic concepts, psychological constructs, etc.).
An adequate reference is provided for each key concept (e.g., a
psychological reference, a legal reference, an encylcopedia, or an
official dictionary).
[NOTE: This item has been changed from the previous version of
the Research Review Inventory. See item 19 for the merged criteria
for items 17 and 19 from the previous version of the R.R.I.].

18 . 18. The research issue or problem is firmly located within the .

discipline of psychology as indicated by appropriate
psychological terms and constructs. (For example: perception,
attitude, cognition, emotion, experience, behaviour, discourse,
identity, community, ideology, etcetera.)

19 . 19. The interest in the problem, issue, or phenomenon is clarified. .

Is there a gap in the existing literature? Who are the relevant role-
players, affected parties, or interest groups with regard to the
research issue or problem, and why would this research be of
interest to them? Role-players, affected parties and interest groups
can include: the researcher, individuals, clients, students,
beneficiaries, patients, families, households, communities,
practitioners, professionals, businesses, organisations, institutions,
funders, legislators, the environment --- ecologies such as a river,
watershed, plant/tree/insect/animal species, or a natural landmark;
and cultural, ceremonial, or historic practices and sites.
[[NOTE: This item has been slightly revised and incorporates the
old items 17 from the previous version of the R.R.I.]

20 . 20. For research proposals at least 12 references from relevant .

scientific and disciplinary literature are provided in the literature
review. For research articles at least 24 references are used in
the introduction, literature review, results, and discussion sections.
(This is a minimum standard. Note that the next 2 items explore the
comprehensiveness and currency of the literature review.)

21 . 21. A minimum of three relevant theoretical perspectives are .

discussed, compared, evaluated, and integrated -- to understand,
describe or explain the psychological dynamics of the research
issue, phenomenon, and context literature are provided in the
literature review. (Theoretical triangulation). Note that older
publications of seminal theorists (for example Freud, Skinner, Jung,
etcetera) are (or may still be) relevant. Recent and current
updates of theories, debates and contestations, and findings
must also be presented.

22 . 22. At least two relevant empirical research results are .

incorporated and discussed in the literature review -- to further
understand, describe or explain the psychological dynamics,
occurrence, incidence, or prevalence (i.e., census data, surveys,
epidemiological studies, experiments, programme evaluations,
 population or client data) of the research issue or phenomenon.

23 . 23. The literature review discussion continues the scientific, .

academic, and disciplinary dialogue with published bodies of
knowledge and expertise.
(For proposals a preliminary but comprehensive overview of
literature is provided, with indications of key studies, theories, and
theorists that inform the proposal.)
(For Master’s or Doctoral dissertation/thesis a brief history of the
theories, ideas, contestations, findings, and debates in the field
should also be provided.)

24 . 24. The literature review is relevant to the topic, without .

unnecessary digressions or detours. The literature review speaks
directly to the research issue that is investigated or explored in this
study. The literature sources are not discussed in peacemeal
fashion, one after the other. An integrated discussion is presented
by the author, in the author’s own words, where findings and
perspectives are summarised, compared, discussed, and reviewed.

25 . 25. The author(s) wrote the literature review section with .

academic integrity. It appears or has been confirmed to be their
own unique work, written in their own words and style. The
literature review is plagiarism-free. All authors and literature
sources are acknowledged in some way (even if the citation style is
incorrect or imperfectly used.) [Unisa will use plagiarism-checking
software to establish if this criterion has been adhered to. In the
case of peer-reviewed published articles you should assume that
the work has been thoroughly checked and vetted for academic
integrity and that it is plagiarism-free. Please provide a rating of 3
for this item in the absence of the exact Turnitin Report.]
26 . 26. All author(s) and sources in the literature review are cited .
correctly and follow the prescribed in-text citation style. (APA7
style for HMPYC80, or in the case of published journal articles --
the prescribed referencing style of the specific journal was adhered
to.)

27 . 27. Research method: The research ontology, (or) paradigm, or .

approach is clearly (a) specified and defined, and (b)
substantiated. In the discussion, it is made evident and clear (a)
which specific approach, paradigm, or ontology was selected and
what this entails, and (b) why this was done. Some examples: The
Positivistic, Post-positivistic, Interpretive, Qualitative, Constructivist,
Social Constructionist, Phenomenological, Realist, Pragmatic,
Ecological Systems, Critical, Transformative, Feminist, Womanist,
Critical Race, Indigenous, Africanist, Decolonial, Hermeneutic,
Participatory, Action research ontology, paradigm, or approach.

28 . 28. Research method: The research question or research .

statement is clearly formulated and demarcated. The following two
constructs are indicated in the research question or statement: (a)
4
 HMPYC80/102/2024/Research Review Inventory (R.R.I.3): Review Log

demographic or contextual information of the population or setting

of the inquiry; and (b) a relevant psychological keyword or
construct.
(Demographic and contextual information of human participants will
comprise: population, group, setting or participant characteristics
such as: age, biological sex, gender identity, gender role, ethnicity,
race, home language, education, religion, employment status,
geographical location, marital status, profession/occupation,
household income, socio-economic status, household size, number
of dependents, geographical location,
urban/suburban/peri-urban/small town /township /informal
settlement/rural, citizenship or nationality. Contextual information
for archival or review studies may include: publications, key
constructs, methods, designs, theories/theorists, samples,
interventions, etcetera.)

29 . 29. Research method: An appropriate (proposed) method and .

(proposed) research design (will be) were chosen to research the
question or issue. The research method and design are indicated.
A rationale for the selected method is provided.

(Research design refers to a specific plan and structure of the

investigation that is used to obtain evidence in order to answer or
illuminate the research question).

(Note that hypothesis testing applies primarily to randomised

clinical trials, experimental and quasi-experimental designs.
Hypothesis testing may also apply to correlational studies where
correlation or regressions are used; or in designs that test for group
or sub-group difference with the aid of t-tests, Anova, F-tests,
Manova, or other inferential statistics.)

30 . 30. Research method: The data or evidence that was (will be) .
collected to investigate the research themes or variables appears
to be appropriate and legitimate. Data can include: tests,
questionnaires, interviews and transcripts of interviews, video
recordings and transcripts, observations, documents or media such
as: theories, personal diary entries, dreams, poems, songs,
reflections, novels, films, photographs, social media entries,
journals, magazines, newspapers, or other cultural artefacts.

31 . 31. Research method: The (proposed) sampling strategy, .

sample population, and sample size are discussed in detail, and
appear to be appropriate. (The strengths and limitations of the
sampling strategy must be indicated for academic research projects
and proposals but are not required for peer reviewed articles.)

32 . 32. Research method: The (proposed) data collection, coding, .

and analysis method(s) are reliable; or dependable, and credible.

* For a study that uses quantitative research techniques the

reliability is demonstrated through consistency, replicability, and
accuracy. Any one of the following must be reported: correlation
 statistics providing evidence of the reliability of an instrument or
technique, such as internal item-test and scale reliability
coefficients, test-retest correlations, parallel test-form correlation,
inter-coder, or inter-observer correlations.
The data collection, coding, and analysis methods/techniques
are clearly explained, and sufficient information is provided to the
reader to follow the procedures.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

* In qualitative research techniques credibility, dependability, and

consistency can be achieved through various practices. Any two
of the following must be reported: thick rich descriptions (in-depth
illustration that explicates culturally situated meanings and
abundant concrete detail), triangulation or crystallization, reasoned
consensus, multi-vocality (different perspectives, nuances, and
voices are articulated), and via inter-observer or inter-coder
agreement. Transparency and verifiability are established via
extensive written field research notes, member checks by
participants, peer review, and an audit trail. Reflexivity is used by
the researchers to make the biases, values, and experiences that
they bring to the research explicit. Any changes to the study or
unexpected occurrences are documented. (For more detailed
method-specific criteria see Creswell, 2007; and other sources).
The data collection, coding, and analysis methods/techniques
are clearly explained, and sufficient information is provided to the
reader to follow the procedures.

33 . 33. Research method: The (proposed) data collection, coding, and .

analysis method(s) are trustworthy and valid.

For a study that uses quantitative research techniques any two of

the following sub-aspects must be reported. The internal validity of
measures refers to:

(i) face validity or content validity (questions or statements

should be appropriate to the research question);

(ii) criterion validity (appropriate criterion variables or instruments

are selected); and

(iii) construct validity (constructs selected for the study should be

congruent with each other; this also includes convergent validity
and discriminating validity.
External validity relates to the degree in which the findings of the
research can be transferred to other contexts. The results can be
generalisable and applied to other similar settings, populations, and
situations. The statistical power and adequacy of the sampling
strategy influence the generalisability of findings.
Objectivity: The researcher demonstrates objectivity by
remaining neutral, uninvolved, and scientifically objective. This can

6
 HMPYC80/102/2024/Research Review Inventory (R.R.I.3): Review Log

be shown by: acknowledging the study’s limitations, meticulous

data management and recording, verbatim transcriptions, clear
notes on theoretical and methodological decisions, and accurate
records of contacts and data collection. (Human experiences in the
world are assumed to be observable and measurable in the form of
a selection of variables and their statistical inter-relations via
standardised tests, psychometric instruments, and procedures in
the positivistic/ post-positivist paradigm.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

* In qualitative research techniques the concept of “validity” (from

quantitative designs) is not a single, fixed, or universal concept, but
“rather a contingent construct, inescapably grounded in the
processes and intentions of particular research methodologies and
projects” (Winter, 2000, p.1). Any two of the following concepts that
are either underlined or in italics must be reported, even if there is
overlap with the previous rating item:

The believability and trustworthiness of the findings (called

“internal validity” in quantitative approaches) are dependent on the
richness of the data. The participants of the study are the only ones
that decide if the results actually reflect the phenomena being
studied. Triangulation is a commonly used method to verify
accuracy and involves cross-checking information from multiple
perspectives and multiple methods of data collection. Triangulation
may involve the involvement of multiple researchers, multiple data
sources or types of data, multiple methods of design and analysis,
and multiple theoretical lenses. The processes and procedures of
the method and technique are sequentially and logically presented.
This is done so that findings and conclusions about data
interpretations are made explicit and rendered credible and
believable. Disconfirming cases are used to test the findings and
interpretations.

Transferability refers to the degree that the findings of the

research can be transferred to other contexts by the readers (called
“external validity” in quantitative approaches). However,
researchers bring their own unique perspectives to the research
process and data interpretation as a subjective or inter-subjective
aspect in qualitative research. Reflexivity is used to make the
subjective biases, values, and experiences of the researcher
explicit. Transferability, therefore, refers to dense descriptions of
processes and procedures used in the study to try and answer the
research question.

Confirmability as inter-subjective agreement refers to the degree

to which the results could be confirmed or corroborated by other
researchers.
 The researcher demonstrates confirmability by indicating: the
study’s limitations, meticulous data management and recording,
verbatim transcription of interviews, clear notes on theoretical and
methodological decisions, and accurate records of contacts and
interviews. If findings are corroborated or confirmed by others who
examine the data, then no inappropriate biases impacted the data
analysis. (Qualitative researchers seek illumination, understanding,
and extrapolation to similar situations. For more detailed method-
specific criteria see Creswell, 2007; and other sources.)

34 . 34. Research method: The (proposed) procedures whereby the .

data are (to be) professionally and ethically managed are
explained in sufficient detail. Any one of the following is sufficient:
the information is appropriately recorded, stored, and secured with
a password or under lock and key.

35 . 35. The ethical prescription of non-malevolence and avoidance .

of harm are complied with.
(The rights and needs of vulnerable and minority groups are
adhered to by prescribed ethical and legal frameworks.)
(If deception is a legitimate part of the study design, this is dealt
with in an ethical and professional manner.)

36 . 36. The ethical directive of informed consent is adhered to. .

(Vulnerable and minority groups are treated within the prescribed
parameters of relevant ethical and legal frameworks.)

37 . 37. The ethical mandate of voluntary participation is adhered to, .

and participants have the right to withdraw from the research study.

38 . 38. The ethical imperatives of privacy, confidentiality, and .

anonymity are not violated.

39 . 39. The ethical imperative of ethical oversight is fulfilled. The .

research proposal or project adheres to institutional research
policies, guidelines, and procedures.
The research proposal was (or will be) submitted to all appropriate
institutional ethics review panels for ethical oversight, and
official written permission was (will be) obtained to perform the
research.

40 . 40. Presentation: The grammar and spelling in the research .

document are at least 95% correct.

41 . 41. The entire document from beginning to end is plagiarism-free. .

All the important works, ideas, theories, authors, facts, and
statements are acknowledged in some way (even if the citation
style is incorrect or imperfectly used.) The authors(s) wrote the
text with academic integrity, and it appears or is confirmed to be
their own and unique work.] [Unisa will use plagiarism-checking
software to establish if this criterion has been adhered to. In the
case of peer-reviewed published articles you should assume that
the work has been thoroughly checked and vetted for academic
8
 HMPYC80/102/2024/Research Review Inventory (R.R.I.3): Review Log

integrity and that it is plagiarism-free. Please provide a rating of 3

for this item in the absence of the exact Turnitin Report.] Also,
see Item 25.
42 . 42. The various authors and sources in the proposal or article (the .
entire document) are cited correctly and follow the prescribed in-
text citation style. This should be correct for the entire document.
(APA7 style for HMPYC80 proposals, or the prescribed referencing
style of the specific journal.) Was the correct citation method used?
Also, see Item 26.

43 . 43. A complete list of all references that were cited is provided .

at the end of the document. Is it complete?

44 . 44. The reference list at the end of the document adheres to the .
required standard and format. (APA7 style for HMPYC80 for
proposals, or in the case of published journal articles -- the
prescribed referencing style of the specific journal was adhered to.)

45 . 45. The work is of overall acceptable academic standard, and it .

is written using an appropriate academic/scientific style suitable
to the research paradigm, approach, and journal (in the case of
published articles).

1/2/3 End of proposal review. The following items pertain to the review of an
? article.

46 46. The actual data collection, coding, and analysis method(s) .

were performed reliably; or dependably and credibly. (Apply the
criteria as discussed in item 32.)

47 . 47. The way in which the data were analysed and interpreted is .
explained in sufficient detail and provides sufficient information for
a reader to be able to follow the procedures.

48 . 48. The data collection, coding, and analysis method(s) were .

applied in a correct and substantiated manner and appeared
trustworthy and valid. (Apply the criteria as discussed in item 33.)

49 . 49. The data analysis and interpretation were performed .

ethically. (Refer to "research ethics": items 35 to 39.)

50 . 50. The results are presented appropriately and correctly. .

51 . 51. The results are clearly structured, well presented, and easy .
to follow.

52 . 52. A discussion is presented which interprets or explains the .

results and their implications for the research question or issue.

53 . 53. The discussion links and explains the results to the existing .
bodies of literature as discussed in the literature review. It links
to existing theoretical perspectives, and where relevant to
 existing empirical findings.

54 . 54. The research paradigm, theoretical perspectives in the .

literature, research methods, data gathering techniques, data
coding and analysis, and interpretations that were employed are in
line with the research question and aim of the study. There is a
“golden thread” that runs through the document and connects
each subsection and section to the whole.

55 . 55. The possibility of alternative explanations or interpretations .

of the results is considered.

56 . 56. The possibility or need for further research is raised. .

57 . 57. The strengths, weaknesses, and limitations of the study are .

presented.

58 . 58. A conclusion is presented that succinctly reiterates the main .

research findings or results.

Rating Scale: 1 = Absent or incorrect. 2 = Only partially addressed; 3 = Sufficiently up to standard.

(Indicate your rating in the appropriate above column and provide substantiating comments to justify
your rating.)

A NOTE ON APPENDICES FOR PROPOSALS

Each PROPOSAL should ideally include the following APPENDICES at the end of the
document:
(i) Information brochure for participants (if any) with contact details of the researcher and
sponsoring institution where applicable;
(iii) Informed consent form that participants (if any) will sign and complete where applicable;
(iii) Proposed budget;
(iv) Proposed project timeline.

The PROPOSAL should also ideally contain a signed declaration page by the researcher that
the document is the independent and authentic work of the researcher and does not contain
any plagiarism or instances of academic dishonesty.

2024 © Unisa

10