This report Don shared involved 40 leading journals in the "social and behavioural sciences (covering clinical psychology, criminology, education, and social work)." Thus it was not particularly associated with psychology. Even in clinical psychology I'm sure the majority of articles do not report interventions that can inform public policy. Second, I'm not sure I agree with the criticism. According to the link Don shared "public money is being wasted because all the details of interventions are not shared in the published research". That seems to assume that the research that was published entailed an intervention, entailed an intervention that could inform public policy, and that the research was supported by public money. Also, why should all the details of an intervention be published in a research articles predominantly aimed at communicating to other research (not people who are going to implement the intervention)? Why can't people interested in that just ask for the details from the researchers? Or perhaps read about the details in some other outlet or data bank suitable for such details?
Marie Marie Helweg-Larsen, Ph.D. Associate Professor l Department of Psychology Kaufman 168 l Dickinson College Phone 717.245.1562 l Fax 717.245.1971 http://users.dickinson.edu/~helwegm/index.html -----Original Message----- From: don allen [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, June 01, 2013 4:19 AM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: Re: [tips] Field under siege I agree that this is worrisome. And the attack continues: http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_stories/2013/130531b.html -Don. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul C Bernhardt" <[email protected]> To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, June 1, 2013 1:50:19 AM Subject: [tips] Field under siege I am starting to feel that our field is under siege. Worst thing about my feelings is that I think it may be justified. With the several instances of research fraud, the infamous Bem article… and now this. These articles needed a lot of work to be publishable anywhere, much less in Psychological Science. The first one is filled with loose use of causal language, statements of factual knowledge of the participants rather than indicating it was their reported information which preserves the idea that it may or may not be completely accurate. This guy is quite appropriately raking the field over the coals for its publication in Psychological Science. http://andrewgelman.com/2013/05/17/how-can-statisticians-help-psychologists-do-their-research-better/ The second one he trashes is due to the poor attention to methodological deficiencies that are actually revealed by careful examination of the statistical analyses, but that did not get proper play in the paper. More improper use of causal language in an obviously correlation set of studies is also criticized. http://andrewgelman.com/2013/05/29/another-one-of-those-psychological-science-papers/ We need to do better, as a field. If we genuinely want to be a science, we had better start acting like one. Paul --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13157.966b795bc7f3ccb35e3da08aebe98f18&n=T&l=tips&o=25829 or send a blank email to leave-25829-13157.966b795bc7f3ccb35e3da08aebe98...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13234.b0e864a6eccfc779c8119f5a4468797f&n=T&l=tips&o=25841 or send a blank email to leave-25841-13234.b0e864a6eccfc779c8119f5a44687...@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=25857 or send a blank email to leave-25857-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
