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 |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=171337936&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: ccm uiTerm: 171337936 longDbName: CINAHL Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: dissinfo: jinfo: jid: 17456916 1WQQ jtl: Perspectives on Psychological Science issn: 17456916 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Sep2023 vid: 18 iid: 5 pid: 20732 pub: Sage Publications Inc. place: Thousand Oaks, California artinfo: ui: 171337936 161712666 171337936 171337936 10.1177/17456916221141357 171337936 ppf: 1244 ppct: 10 formats: tig: atl: Inaccuracy in the Scientific Record and Open Postpublication Critique. aug: au: Brewin, Chris R. affil: Research Department of Clinical Educational & Health Psychology, University College London sug: subj: Data Analytics Electronic Publications Evaluation Psychology Data Quality Evaluation Privacy and Confidentiality Citation Analysis Statistics ab: 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. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: review Journal Article ougenre: Article language: English refInfo: holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|