This is fascinating Allen and I, for one, would appreciate knowing where
to locate resources that discuss this requirement of physical sciences
re: important experimental claims need to be replicated before they are
published. Sounds like such a logical and crucial requirement. I also
would be interested in who conducts these replication studies and what
type of relationship they have with the researchers involved in the
initial important experimental claim. Also, how common is it for these
replication studies to be published and are the researchers who conduct
them given their due as having provided a crucial contribution to the
field of scientific endeavor?
I realize that I have mentioned the Wakefield study before but it does
seem especially relevant to our discussion. No reputable medical
researcher could replicate Wakefield's data for more than a decade after
his study was published in Lancet medical journal. Imagine all the
havoc in the autism community that could have been avoided if only
Lancet had had the same requirement of replication of Wakefield's
experimental claim BEFORE they published his bogus research data. In
reality, it seems that all journals who claim to be sources of
scientifically valid research need to require that crucial replication
of new experimental claims. If this step is ignored/skipped, then
compromises in the reporting of data will continue to occur and the
public-at-large will continue to be skeptical of the scientific research
published in journals reported, and rightly so.
And to add something new to the mix, how much do the biases of the
review committees for journals contribute to determining which studies
are worth of being published or not? Of course, that's a whole
different prickly area to ponder but certainly one worth exploring.
Joan
[email protected]
Allen Esterson wrote:
Though there are certainly known cases of scientists making their
results conform to theoretical expectations more closely than their
experiments justify (e.g., by the choice of relative outliers that are
chosen to be ignored as anomalous), there seems to be one difference
compared to psychology. In physical science any important experimental
claim requires independent replication before being accepted by peers.
My impression is that this is frequently not the case in psychology,
with results of studies sometimes being widely cited regardless of
whether they have been replicated.
Allen Esterson
Former lecturer, Science Department
Southwark College, London
[email protected]
http://www.esterson.org
----------------------------------------------------
From: "Beth Benoit" <[email protected]>
To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)"
<[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2011 9:32:09 PM
Subject: [tips] Stapel's faking of social psychology data
This story has been going on for a couple of days. Embarrassing:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21118-psychologist-admits-faking-data-in-dozens-of-studies.html
Beth Benoit
Granite State College
Plymouth State University
New Hampshire
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected].
To unsubscribe click here:
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=49240.d374d0c18780e492c3d2e63f91752d0d&n=T&l=tips&o=13884
or send a blank email to
leave-13884-49240.d374d0c18780e492c3d2e63f91752...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected].
To unsubscribe click here:
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=13920
or send a blank email to
leave-13920-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
