Working with psychology journal editors to correct problems in the scientific literature.

2020 ◽  
Vol 61 (4) ◽  
pp. 342-348
Author(s):  
Harris L. Friedman ◽  
Douglas A. MacDonald ◽  
James C. Coyne
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Literature ◽  
Journal Editors

scholarly journals Common mistakes in data presentation and statistical analysis: how can the BioStat Decision Tool help?

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Siouxsie Wiles ◽  
Anne L Bishop
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Literature ◽  
Statistical Tests ◽  
Statistical Test ◽  
Statistical Techniques ◽  
Sample Collection ◽  
Decision Tool ◽  
Data Presentation ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
Molecular Microbiology ◽  
User Friendly

As medical and molecular microbiologists who regularly read the scientific literature, it is our impression that many published papers contain data that is inappropriately presented and/or analysed. This is borne out by a number of studies which indicate that typically at least half of published scientific articles that use statistical methods contain statistical errors. While there are an abundance of resources dedicated to explaining statistics to biologists, the evidence would suggest that they are largely ineffective. These resources tend to focus on how particular statistical tests work, with reams of complicated-looking mathematical formulae. In addition, many statisticians are unfamiliar with the application of statistical techniques to molecular microbiology, instead telling us we need more samples, which can be difficult both ethically and practically in fields that include animal work and painstaking sample collection. In an age where performing a statistical test merely requires clicking a button in a computer programme, it could be argued that what the vast majority of biologists need is not mathematical formulae but simple guidance on which buttons to click. We have developed an easy to follow decision chart that guides biologists through the statistical maze. Our practical and user friendly chart should prove useful not only to active researchers, but also to journal editors and reviewers to rapidly determine if data presented in a submitted manuscript has been correctly analysed.

scholarly journals Common mistakes in data presentation and statistical analysis: how can the BioStat Decision Tool help?

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Siouxsie Wiles ◽  
Anne L Bishop
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Literature ◽  
Statistical Tests ◽  
Statistical Test ◽  
Statistical Techniques ◽  
Sample Collection ◽  
Decision Tool ◽  
Data Presentation ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
Molecular Microbiology ◽  
User Friendly

As medical and molecular microbiologists who regularly read the scientific literature, it is our impression that many published papers contain data that is inappropriately presented and/or analysed. This is borne out by a number of studies which indicate that typically at least half of published scientific articles that use statistical methods contain statistical errors. While there are an abundance of resources dedicated to explaining statistics to biologists, the evidence would suggest that they are largely ineffective. These resources tend to focus on how particular statistical tests work, with reams of complicated-looking mathematical formulae. In addition, many statisticians are unfamiliar with the application of statistical techniques to molecular microbiology, instead telling us we need more samples, which can be difficult both ethically and practically in fields that include animal work and painstaking sample collection. In an age where performing a statistical test merely requires clicking a button in a computer programme, it could be argued that what the vast majority of biologists need is not mathematical formulae but simple guidance on which buttons to click. We have developed an easy to follow decision chart that guides biologists through the statistical maze. Our practical and user friendly chart should prove useful not only to active researchers, but also to journal editors and reviewers to rapidly determine if data presented in a submitted manuscript has been correctly analysed.

Detecting errors that result in retractions

2019 ◽  
Vol 49 (6) ◽  
pp. 942-954 ◽  
Author(s):  
Line Edslev Andersen ◽  
K Brad Wray
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Literature ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
The Past

We present a taxonomy of errors in the scientific literature and an account of how the errors are distributed over the categories. We have developed the taxonomy by studying substantial errors in the scientific literature as described in retraction notices published in the journal Science over the past 35 years. We then examine how the sorts of errors that lead to retracted papers can be prevented and detected, considering the perspective of collaborating scientists, journal editors and referees, and readers of the published articles.

scholarly journals The Open Access Advantage for Studies of Human Electrophysiology: Impact on Citations and Altmetrics

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter E Clayson ◽  
Scott Baldwin ◽  
Michael J. Larson
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
Scientific Literature ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Impact Factor Journal ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
Methodological Rigor ◽  
Human Electrophysiology ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Journal Impact

Replication failures of influential findings across fields of science have contributed to a credibility crisis, and the sub-area of human electrophysiology has not escaped unscathed. In an effort to restore credibility, recent initiatives aim to improve methodological rigor of research via transparency and openness. We sought to determine the impact of such initiatives on open access publishing in the sub-area of human electrophysiology and the impact of open access on the attention articles received in the scholarly literature and other outlets. Data for 35,144 articles across 967 journals from the last 20 years were examined. Approximately 35% of articles were open access, and the rate of publication of open-access articles increased over time. Open access articles showed 9 to 21% more PubMed and CrossRef citations and 39% more Altmetric mentions than closed access articles. Green open access articles (i.e., author archived) did not differ from non-green open access articles with respect to citations and were related to higher Altmetric mentions. These findings demonstrate that open-access publishing is increasing in popularity in the sub-area of human electrophysiology and that open-access articles enjoy the “open access advantage” in citations similar to the larger scientific literature. The benefit of the open access advantage may motivate researchers to make their publications open access and pursue publication outlets that support it. In consideration of the direct connection between citations and journal impact factor, journal editors may improve the accessibility and impact of published articles by encouraging authors to self-archive manuscripts on preprint servers.

scholarly journals The Case for Standardising Gene Nomenclature Across Vertebrates

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fiona M. McCarthy ◽  
Tamsin E.M. Jones ◽  
Anne E. Kwitek ◽  
Cynthia L. Smith ◽  
Peter D. Vize ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Arginine Vasopressin ◽  
Comparative Studies ◽  
Evolutionary History ◽  
Scientific Literature ◽  
Gene Nomenclature ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
Novel Gene ◽  
Genes Encoding ◽  
Current Guidelines

Standardized gene nomenclature supports unambiguous communication and identification of the scientific literature associated with genes. To support the increasing number of annotated genomes that are now available for comparative studies, gene nomenclature authorities coordinate the assignment of approved gene names that can be readily propagated across species without losing their sense of meaning. Theofanopoulou et al (Theofanopoulou et al. 2021) propose nomenclature changes to the genes encoding oxytocin and arginine vasopressin and their receptors which would hinder comparative studies and literature identification. Instead, we propose minor updates to the current approved nomenclature of these vertebrate genes to better reflect their evolutionary history, without confusing the literature that already exists around these well-studied genes. We encourage authors to work with nomenclature committees to ensure any novel gene names fit current guidelines so that their publications can be readily indexed and made accessible. Moreover, we call on journal editors and reviewers to help support communication and indexing of gene-related publications by ensuring that standardized gene nomenclature is routinely used.

scholarly journals What Constitutes Authorship in the Social Sciences?

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gernot Pruschak
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Research Team ◽  
Scientific Literature ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
Team Members ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
The Social ◽  
Research Task ◽  
Social Scientific ◽  
To Receive

Authorship represents a highly discussed topic in nowadays academia. The share of co-authored papers has increased substantially in recent years allowing scientists to specialize and focus on specific tasks. Arising from this, social scientific literature has especially discussed author orders and the distribution of publication and citation credits among co-authors in depth. Yet only a small fraction of the authorship literature has also addressed the actual underlying question of what actually constitutes authorship. To identify social scientists' motives for assigning authorship, we conduct an empirical study surveying researchers around the globe. We find that social scientists tend to distribute research tasks among (individual) research team members. Nevertheless, they generally adhere to the universally applicable Vancouver criteria when distributing authorship. More specifically, participation in every research task with the exceptions of data work as well as reviewing and remarking increases scholars' chances to receive authorship. Based on our results, we advise journal editors to introduce authorship guidelines that incorporate the Vancouver criteria as they seem applicable to the social sciences. We further call upon research institutions to emphasize data skills in hiring and promotion processes as publication counts might not always depict these characteristics.

A 200-Year History of the Study of Childhood Language Disorders of Unknown Origin: Changes in Terminology

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 6-11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laurence B. Leonard
Keyword(s):  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Scientific Literature ◽  
Language Disorder ◽  
Language Disorders ◽  
Unknown Origin ◽  
Developmental Language Disorder ◽  
The Past ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Many

Purpose The current “specific language impairment” and “developmental language disorder” discussion might lead to important changes in how we refer to children with language disorders of unknown origin. The field has seen other changes in terminology. This article reviews many of these changes. Method A literature review of previous clinical labels was conducted, and possible reasons for the changes in labels were identified. Results References to children with significant yet unexplained deficits in language ability have been part of the scientific literature since, at least, the early 1800s. Terms have changed from those with a neurological emphasis to those that do not imply a cause for the language disorder. Diagnostic criteria have become more explicit but have become, at certain points, too narrow to represent the wider range of children with language disorders of unknown origin. Conclusions The field was not well served by the many changes in terminology that have transpired in the past. A new label at this point must be accompanied by strong efforts to recruit its adoption by clinical speech-language pathologists and the general public.

Development of Reading Remediation for Dyslexic Individuals

2016 ◽  
Vol 224 (4) ◽  
pp. 240-246 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mélanie Bédard ◽  
Line Laplante ◽  
Julien Mercier
Keyword(s):  
20Th Century ◽  
Scientific Literature ◽  
Behavioral Data ◽  
Educational Neuroscience ◽  
Reading Remediation ◽  
Functional Brain ◽  
Neurophysiological Data ◽  
Brain Correlates ◽  
Research Questions ◽  
The Brain

Abstract. Dyslexia is a phenomenon for which the brain correlates have been studied since the beginning of the 20th century. Simultaneously, the field of education has also been studying dyslexia and its remediation, mainly through behavioral data. The last two decades have seen a growing interest in integrating neuroscience and education. This article provides a quick overview of pertinent scientific literature involving neurophysiological data on functional brain differences in dyslexia and discusses their very limited influence on the development of reading remediation for dyslexic individuals. Nevertheless, it appears that if certain conditions are met – related to the key elements of educational neuroscience and to the nature of the research questions – conceivable benefits can be expected from the integration of neurophysiological data with educational research. When neurophysiological data can be employed to overcome the limits of using behavioral data alone, researchers can both unravel phenomenon otherwise impossible to document and raise new questions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document