Final answer:
Effect size reporting in empirical research is advisable, not optional, as it quantifies the strength of a finding. Larger sample sizes are preferred for their accuracy and generalizability in scientific research. Science is considered an iterative process because it continually tests and refines hypotheses.
Step-by-step explanation:
Reporting the effect size is not optional but rather advisable in empirical manuscripts. Effect size provides a quantitative measure of the strength of a phenomenon and is essential for the interpretation of statistical significance. For example, a study might report a statistically significant result with a P-value of 0.03, suggesting there is a 3% chance that the observed difference between two groups is due to chance alone. Although the P-value indicates significance, it does not convey the magnitude of the effect, which is critical for understanding the practical relevance of the findings.
Larger sample sizes generally lead to more accurate estimates of population parameters, which is why larger sample sizes are usually preferred in scientific research. This ensures that the results are more likely to be generalizable and less prone to random error. However, it is crucial to balance the benefits of larger samples with the practical considerations of time, cost, and ethical constraints, especially when research involves human participants.
An important aspect of scientific research is that it is an iterative process. This iterative nature allows for continuous testing and refining of hypotheses, which contributes to the accumulation of knowledge through systematic investigation and analysis. Science advances by developing new hypotheses from the results of earlier work, thereby expanding our comprehension of the natural world through gradual refinement of theories and models.