Inaccuracy in the Scientific Record and Open Postpublication Critique.
There is growing evidence that the published psychological literature is marred by multiple errors and inaccuracies and often fails to reflect the changing nature of the knowledge base. At least four types of error are common—citation error, methodological error, statistical error, and interpretatio...
| Publicado en: | Perspectives on Psychological Science Vol. 18; no. 5; pp. 1244 - 1254 |
|---|---|
| Autor principal: | |
| Formato: | review Journal Article |
| Publicado: |
Sage Publications Inc.
Sep2023
|
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| Sumario: | There is growing evidence that the published psychological literature is marred by multiple errors and inaccuracies and often fails to reflect the changing nature of the knowledge base. At least four types of error are common—citation error, methodological error, statistical error, and interpretation error. In the face of the apparent inevitability of these inaccuracies, core scientific values such as openness and transparency require that correction mechanisms are readily available. In this article, I reviewed standard mechanisms in psychology journals and found them to have limitations. The effects of more widely enabling open postpublication critique in the same journal in addition to conventional peer review are considered. This mechanism is well established in medicine and the life sciences but rare in psychology and may assist psychological science to correct itself. |
|---|