发帖
雷达卡
以下内容来自SCP （society for Consumer Psychology），是SCP前任主席L.J. Shrum 教授分享给我的。我觉得非常的有用，如果有对消费者行为研究感兴趣，并且希望将研究做到规范，将自己的研究发表于国外有威望的学术期刊的话，非常的有帮助。因而分享给大家。希望与大家一起学习，欢迎发表观点和讨论。以下是报告的简介部分，全文参见附件
Academic Research Report in CB_SCP Guideline.docx
(36.77 KB)
The Super-Committee on Scientific Practicesin Consumer Psychology (hereafter, Committee) was given the charge by MichelPham (President, Society for Consumer Psychology, 2012) to develop a set ofguidelines on recommended best scientific practices with respect to (a) theconduct, (b) the reporting, (c) the evaluation, and d) the dissemination ofacademic research on consumer psychology and consumer behavior. The reportfollows.
INTRODUCTION
The guidelines developed by the Committeeare based on the tenets of the scientific method. Among the many tenets of thescientific method (objectivity, observation, measurement, falsifiability), theCommittee’s recommendations focus primarily on the tenet that for research tobe considered scientific, it must be verifiable, or more commonly, replicable (Bacon 1267/1859; see Nosek,Spies, & Motyl, 2012).
The principle of replicability inscientific research is not in dispute, and the principle is embodied in the guidelines,recommendations, and specific requirements for reporting scientific researchthat appear in standard methods textbooks across the many scientific fields.These recommendations in turn typically appear in more specific form inreporting guidelines and “style sheets” for peer-reviewed journals.
The recommendations of methods textbooksand journal that are intended to address the replicability principle arefounded on the notion of transparency.In order for an empirical study (and its findings) to be replicable, it must becompletely clear what was done in the study (methods) and also completely clearwhat was found (results). Thus, the many recommendations that appear in methodstextbooks and journal guidelines focus on what is to be reported in a methodssection and results section of a scientific report.
Although many of these guidelines are clearand often very specific, we agree with the observations of others (e.g., Bakker& Wicherts, 2011; Bouwmeester et al., 2012; Kashi et al., 2009), as well asour own individual observations, that the reporting guidelines are often notfollowed (or mistakes are made in reporting), resulting in scientific reportsof research findings that do not allow fellow scientists to fully replicate theresearch.
Thus, one major component of therecommendations of the Committee is to establish clear and comprehensiveguidelines for reporting scientific research.
A second major component of therecommendations pertains to specificity. Although many reporting guidelines,such as reporting relevant statistics for particular analyses (e.g., degrees offreedom, descriptive and inferential statistics, effect sizes) are typicallyvery precise, other recommendations may be very broad, if not ambiguous (e.g.,reporting “relevant” measures, experimental conditions, screening criteria). Indeed,this breadth and ambiguity have been implicated as reasons why much researchdoes not replicate (Ioannidis, 2005; Nosek et al., 2012), particularly infields with more flexibility in design and analysis (Ioannidis, 2005; Simmons,Nelson, & Simonsohn, 2011).
For these reasons, the recommendations ofthe Committee are comprehensive and specific. Most are noncontroversial, andare standard recommendations across many scientific fields, including consumerpsychology. Other recommendations are standard practices in a number of fields,but not consumer psychology, and thus likely to be more contentious. Stillothers are relatively
本帖隐藏的内容
javascript:;novel and forward thinking, designed to push the notionof full transparency past current thinking and practice.
The recommendations (whether adopted intheir entirety or a subset) will increase the burden of authors and reviewers,and the Committee notes that these are not trivial issues. However, theCommittee feels that although the burden is greater than current practice, therecommendations are not so onerous that they form a significant barrier topublication; indeed, as just noted, many are standard practice in other fields.More important, the Committee believes that the recommendations make forsignificantly better scientific practice, and should increase the disseminationof scientific knowledge.
Finally, the Committee would like toaddress the issue of the evaluation of research submissions that adhere to thenew guidelines, if adopted. Full transparency will likely reveal that theresearch process and results that it produces have less uniformity andconsistency than might appear in scientific reports with less transparency, andthus less uniformity and consistency than current submissions to the fieldsleading journals. Moreover, it is this inherent “messiness” in research thatauthors may attempt to minimize (through selective reporting) because they fearthat editors, associate editors, and reviewers (hereafter, the review team)will use this messiness as a reason for rejection, or at the least require thatsubstantial amounts of new data be collected to smooth out or eliminate theirregularities.
The Committee in fact believes these fearsare justifiable. More important, if true, then the new requirements for conduct,reporting, and dissemination of research would indeed be highly onerous, abarrier to publication that would likely result in reduced submissions, andthus a potential reduction in the growth of scientific knowledge. For thisreason, the charge of the committee, as noted earlier, also includes an evaluation component. The evaluationcomponents consist of concurrent recommendations to a journal’s review teamregarding how to evaluate submissions in light of the new reportingrequirements. The recommendations address specific issues, but can besummarized by the recommendations that the review team increase theirtoleration of “data anomalies” beyond those generally observed in currentpractice, focus on patterns of results across studies rather than shortcomingsin a single study, and weigh issues of Type II error as well as Type I error injudging the merit of a submission.
To reiterate, the goal of the Committee,and the impetus behind the recommendation, is to promote the advancement ofknowledge through good scientific research practices. It is true that some ofthe current research practices that the recommendations seek to address have attimes been at least implicitly linked to unethical conduct through labels suchas “questionable” (cf. John, Loewenstein, & Prelec, 2012), the purpose ofthe recommendations of the Committee is focused on improving scientificpractices that allow for the replication and verification of publishedresearch. In doing so, valid research findings are more likely to flourish andinvalid ones less likely to mislead.
Academic Research Report in CB ...
提升卡
置顶卡
沉默卡
变色卡
抢沙发
千斤顶
显身卡
京公网安备 11010802022788号
