Changes in the process used to critique articles based on Psychophysiologically Based Research Studies

R. Sherman
{"title":"Changes in the process used to critique articles based on Psychophysiologically Based Research Studies","authors":"R. Sherman","doi":"10.29052/2412-3188.v8.i1.2021.1-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Large numbers of audits have shown that we are inundated with faked studies, poorly done studies, improperly massaged data, sales pitches, etc. Few of the major studies can be replicated, and many journals still refuse to publish replications – especially if they don't support the original study's results. Thus, the way we need to critique studies has shifted from a relatively straightforward evaluation of the study to a detective process, including evaluating the author(s) and the journal in which the study appeared. \nThis set of criteria is only applicable to research studies using human or non-human subjects. Studies appropriate for applying the following criteria can be from any area within psychophysiology, including clinical, sports, education, military, etc. It is not for theoretical articles, thinly veiled sales pitches, etc. The critique process is active and generally involves more than reading an article then accepting its conclusions at face value: The person critiquing a research article needs to gain some perspective on the area the article discusses, the authors' qualifications and experience (are they sales folk selling something, etc.), the literature the authors included in their review as opposed to what is published, etc. It is also likely that the critiquer will be checking the statistics and other crucial portions of the article by using statistical software.","PeriodicalId":34185,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Psychophysiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Psychophysiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.29052/2412-3188.v8.i1.2021.1-5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Large numbers of audits have shown that we are inundated with faked studies, poorly done studies, improperly massaged data, sales pitches, etc. Few of the major studies can be replicated, and many journals still refuse to publish replications – especially if they don't support the original study's results. Thus, the way we need to critique studies has shifted from a relatively straightforward evaluation of the study to a detective process, including evaluating the author(s) and the journal in which the study appeared. This set of criteria is only applicable to research studies using human or non-human subjects. Studies appropriate for applying the following criteria can be from any area within psychophysiology, including clinical, sports, education, military, etc. It is not for theoretical articles, thinly veiled sales pitches, etc. The critique process is active and generally involves more than reading an article then accepting its conclusions at face value: The person critiquing a research article needs to gain some perspective on the area the article discusses, the authors' qualifications and experience (are they sales folk selling something, etc.), the literature the authors included in their review as opposed to what is published, etc. It is also likely that the critiquer will be checking the statistics and other crucial portions of the article by using statistical software.
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
基于心理生理学研究的文章评论过程中的变化
大量的审计表明,我们被伪造的研究、做得不好的研究、不恰当的数据、推销等淹没了。很少有重要的研究可以被重复,而且许多期刊仍然拒绝发表重复研究——特别是如果他们不支持原始研究的结果。因此,我们需要批判研究的方式已经从对研究的相对直接的评估转变为一种检测过程,包括评估作者和研究发表的期刊。这套标准只适用于使用人类或非人类受试者的研究。适用于以下标准的研究可以来自心理生理学的任何领域,包括临床、运动、教育、军事等。它不适合理论性文章,不太含蓄的推销等。评论过程是积极的,通常不仅仅是阅读一篇文章,然后接受其表面价值的结论:评论一篇研究文章的人需要对文章讨论的领域,作者的资格和经验(他们是销售人员吗,等等),作者在他们的评论中包含的文献,而不是发表的文献,等等有一些看法。也有可能,评论家将检查统计数据和其他关键部分的文章使用统计软件。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Psychophysiology of Wellbeing; A must to introduce in undergraduate programs The 6-AF Evaluation of Neuroprotective Activity against Cd- Induced Oxidative Stress and Degenerative Brain Disease including PD in Mice Assessing BDNF correlations with non-invasive indicators of neurological decline in different age groups Investigating the impact of eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) in reducing birth trauma symptoms The Be aware and grateful for little things: The Relative Contribution of Mindfulness and Gratitude in Predicting Satisfaction
×
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