Minimizing observer bias in animal behavior studies revisited: Improvement, but a long way to go

IF 16.4 1区 化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Accounts of Chemical Research Pub Date : 2024-02-06 DOI:10.1111/eth.13446
Todd M. Freeberg, Scott A. Benson, Gordon M. Burghardt
{"title":"Minimizing observer bias in animal behavior studies revisited: Improvement, but a long way to go","authors":"Todd M. Freeberg,&nbsp;Scott A. Benson,&nbsp;Gordon M. Burghardt","doi":"10.1111/eth.13446","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>For decades, texts on methods in animal behavior research have stressed the need for observers of behavior to work to minimize potential unconscious biases in their coding of data. Two major ways of minimizing these biases are to carry out data coding blind to the key comparisons being made in the study and to have high inter-observer reliability. Over 10 years ago, Burghardt et al. (2012, <i>Ethology</i>, 118, 511) reviewed five major journals in the field of animal behavior and coded randomly selected articles from five decadal volumes (1970 to 2010). That earlier article found poor rates of reporting these two common methods for minimizing potential biases. Here, we carried out similar coding for the 2020 volumes from those same five journals. We found that rates of reporting have increased in all five journals – some substantially. However, rates of reporting still lag behind the journal <i>Infancy</i>, which publishes research on human infant development and relies on many of the same behavioral observation and coding methods used by animal behavior researchers. Given increased calls for transparency and reproducibility in many different fields of scientific study, we argue that we – researchers, reviewers, and editors – can and need to do better at making sure we are actively conducting research in ways to minimize potential observer biases.</p>","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eth.13446","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

For decades, texts on methods in animal behavior research have stressed the need for observers of behavior to work to minimize potential unconscious biases in their coding of data. Two major ways of minimizing these biases are to carry out data coding blind to the key comparisons being made in the study and to have high inter-observer reliability. Over 10 years ago, Burghardt et al. (2012, Ethology, 118, 511) reviewed five major journals in the field of animal behavior and coded randomly selected articles from five decadal volumes (1970 to 2010). That earlier article found poor rates of reporting these two common methods for minimizing potential biases. Here, we carried out similar coding for the 2020 volumes from those same five journals. We found that rates of reporting have increased in all five journals – some substantially. However, rates of reporting still lag behind the journal Infancy, which publishes research on human infant development and relies on many of the same behavioral observation and coding methods used by animal behavior researchers. Given increased calls for transparency and reproducibility in many different fields of scientific study, we argue that we – researchers, reviewers, and editors – can and need to do better at making sure we are actively conducting research in ways to minimize potential observer biases.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
动物行为研究中观察者偏差最小化再探:有所改进,但任重道远
几十年来,有关动物行为研究方法的书籍一直强调,行为观察者在对数据进行编码时,需要努力将潜在的无意识偏差降至最低。将这些偏差最小化的两个主要方法是:在研究中进行关键比较时,数据编码要盲目;观察者之间的可靠性要高。十多年前,Burghardt 等人(2012 年,《动物学》,118, 511)回顾了动物行为学领域的五种主要期刊,并从五个十年卷(1970 年至 2010 年)中随机抽取文章进行编码。这篇文章发现,这两种常用方法的报告率很低,无法最大限度地减少潜在偏差。在此,我们对这五家期刊的 2020 卷进行了类似的编码。我们发现,所有五种期刊的报告率都有所提高,有些还大幅提高。然而,报告率仍然落后于《婴儿期》期刊,该期刊发表的是关于人类婴儿发育的研究,并依赖于动物行为研究人员使用的许多相同的行为观察和编码方法。鉴于许多不同科学研究领域对透明度和可重复性的呼声日益高涨,我们认为,我们--研究人员、审稿人和编辑--能够也需要做得更好,确保我们在积极开展研究时尽量减少观察者的潜在偏见。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Accounts of Chemical Research
Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合
CiteScore
31.40
自引率
1.10%
发文量
312
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.
期刊最新文献
Management of Cholesteatoma: Hearing Rehabilitation. Congenital Cholesteatoma. Evaluation of Cholesteatoma. Management of Cholesteatoma: Extension Beyond Middle Ear/Mastoid. Recidivism and Recurrence.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1