When researchers think of plagiarism, most imagine copy-pasting paragraphs. But in today’s publishing world, plagiarism goes far deeper. Citation mistakes—often unintentional—are one of the most common reasons manuscripts are flagged, desk-rejected, or even retracted. At Research & Report Consulting, we frequently review papers where the problem wasn’t copied text but sloppy referencing. Authors are surprised … Read more
Strong research can lose impact when visuals are poorly designed. Data visualization is not just about aesthetics—it communicates insights, strengthens arguments, and builds trust. Yet, many researchers unintentionally weaken their findings by presenting flawed visuals. In this article, we highlight the most common mistakes in research visualization, explain why they matter, and provide guidance on … Read more
In both academic and applied research, the oft-repeated claim—“This study is objective”—masks a deeper reality: objectivity in research design is neither absolute nor devoid of negotiation. Researcher assumptions, frameworks, and methodological decisions inevitably shape outcomes, thus making objectivity constructed and prone to compromise. 1. Framework Choice: The Lens That Filters Reality Every theoretical framework inherently … Read more
Inferential statistics are powerful tools for uncovering patterns and testing relationships. But they are also easily misused. One of the most frequent and damaging mistakes we see at Research & Report Consulting is treating correlation as causation. This statistical misstep is more than a technical flaw—it undermines credibility, damages publication chances, and can lead to … Read more
In qualitative research, data saturation is one of the most cited yet misunderstood concepts. Too often, researchers treat saturation as a “magic number” — usually 12 or 15 interviews — without considering research design or analytical depth. At Research & Report, we regularly review manuscripts and supervise doctoral work where saturation is misapplied. This article … Read more
In qualitative research, validity is not merely technical — it is deeply interpretive, ethical, and relational. Yet, while researchers meticulously detail methods, tools, and coding frameworks, they often gloss over or omit a critical component: positionality and reflexivity. This oversight undermines not only the credibility of the study but also its epistemological integrity. At Research … Read more
In academic and applied research circles, the terms scoping and exploratory often carry an unintended implication: that the work is preliminary, informal, or exempt from rigor. That’s a dangerous myth. At Research & Report, we frequently observe a pattern: researchers use the label “exploratory” to excuse vague questions, ad-hoc methods, or weak analytical structure — … Read more
In quantitative research, justifying sample size is a fundamental requirement. Yet, one of the most misused tools in this process is G*Power — a free and powerful program that helps estimate sample sizes based on power analysis.While G*Power is valuable, it’s often misapplied or overly relied upon, leading to flawed research designs, underpowered studies, and … Read more
Despite the growing acceptance and institutionalization of qualitative research in academia, many studies still fall into a critical trap — they lack a solid theoretical foundation. While qualitative methods are celebrated for exploring complexity, meaning, and lived experience, they are increasingly being used in ways that are conceptually shallow, methodologically misaligned, and analytically weak. This … Read more
In today’s publish-or-perish academic environment, research gaps are a staple of literature reviews. However, many so-called “gaps” are superficial. Weakly framed gaps lead to weak contributions, making manuscripts less likely to survive peer review or gain traction in global journals. This article explains why most research gaps lack depth and how to construct meaningful, impactful … Read more
