Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

111286Re: [evol-psych] News: Structure deep within the brain may contribute to a rich, varied social life

Expand Messages
  • Maarten
    Jan 2, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Here's maybe another reason why replication studies aren't popular:


      Any comments on the article above will be appreciated.

      Best to all,

      --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "Don Zimmerman" <dwzimm@...> wrote:
      > --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "Maarten" <m.aalberse@> wrote:
      > > In addition to what you mention, there is another and in some ways more worrisome issue:
      > > It is not just the boosting of the image of the author of this "new" discovery that drives such (near)plagiarism, but also that there is a growing trend for journals (at least those that specialize in the human sciences) to refuse papers that describe replications of earlier studies...
      > > Even thouh science requires such replications, the papers describing these are considered "not interesting", because they don't sell well.
      > >
      > > Despite this gloomy message, my best wishes for the new year,
      > >
      > DWZ:
      > Yes, that is a good point. It seems to me that replication of studies in their original form, as well as replication with slight changes, are both highly desirable. I should think that an original author would want to replicate his or her own study, if only to assess its reliability and make it still more convincing, and perhaps at the same time or soon after explore certain changes in procedure that would yield new information. But often the original author does just one "study" and then quits and moves on to something else.
      > So it is left to others to follow the same path, perhaps years later, after the first innovator is long forgotten. Since the new investigator is motivated to display originality and priority, there is a tendency to ignore what has been discovered years ago. That means there is no comparison of the new results with the forgotten results, which if done could actually give valuable clues about the process being studied. That does not seem to be an optimal strategy for building up a body of reliable scientific information.
      > Happy New Year to all!
      > Best regards,
      > Donald W. Zimmerman
      > Vancouver, BC, Canada
      > dwzimm@...
      > http://mypage.direct.ca/z/zimmerma/index.html
    • Show all 27 messages in this topic