Six simple steps scientists can take to avoid having their work misrepresented
来源:互联网 发布:淘宝网丝带 编辑:程序博客网 时间:2024/04/30 07:30
Writing a journal article? Here are six simple steps you can take to avoid having your claims misinterpreted and misrepresented. None of these steps require any special analyses or changes to your lab practices. They are steps you should take when writing about your findings. I haven't always followed these steps in my own articles, but I will be in the future (whenever I have final say on a paper or can convince my collaborators).
- Do not speculate in your abstract. Abstracts are the place to report what you did, why you did it, and what you found. It is fine to report any conclusion that follows directly from your data. But, you should not use the abstract as a place to make claims that exceed your evidence. For example, even if you think your findings with undergrads in your laboratory might be relevant for a better understanding of autism, your abstract should not mention autism unless you actually studied it. Readers of your abstract (often the only thing people read) will assume that what you said is what you found, and media reports will focus on that your speculation rather than your findings.
- Separate planned and exploratory analyses and label them. If you registered your analysis plan and stick to it, you can mark those analyses as planned, documenting that you are testing what you originally intended to test. It is fine to explore your data fully, but you should flag any unplanned analyses as exploratory and note explicitly that they require replication and verification. Your exploratory analyses should be treated as speculative rather than definitive tests.
- Combine results and discussion sections. Justify each analysis and explain what it shows in the same place in your manuscript. If you separate your analyses and explanations, non-expert readers will skip your evidence and focus on your conclusions. By combining them, you allow the reader to better evaluate the link between your evidence and your conclusions.
- Add a caveats and limitations section. In your general discussion, you should add a description of any limitations of your study. That includes shortcomings of the method, but also limitations to the generalizability of your sample, effects in need of replication, etc. If your effects are small, you should note if and how that limits their practical implications. By identifying limitations and caveats in your paper, your readers will better understanding what your findings do and do not show.
- Specify the limits of generalization. Few papers do this, but all of them should. Most papers in psychology test undergraduates and then make claims as if they apply to all of humanity. Perhaps they do, but any generalization beyond the tested population should be justified. If you tested undergraduates and expect your studies to generalize to similar undergraduate populations, you should say so. If you think they also will generalize to the elderly or to children, you should say so and explain why. Spell out the characteristics of your sample that you think are essential to obtain your effect. Specifying generalization has benefits. First, it lets readers know the scope of your effects and helps them to predict whether they could obtain the same result with their own available population. Second, it clarifies the importance of your findings. If you expect that your effects are limited to subjects at your university in December of 2012 and won't generalize to other times or places, then it is less clear that anyone should care. Third, by specifying your generalization, you are making a more precise claim about your effect that others can then test. If you claim your effect should generalize to all undergraduates, then anyone testing undergraduates should be able to find it (assuming adequate statistical power), and if they can't, that undermines your claim. If you restrict generalization too much to protect yourself against challenges, then others will have no reason to bother testing your effect. Perhaps most importantly, if you appropriately limit your generalization in the paper itself, then media coverage will be less likely generalize your claims beyond what you actually intended.
- Flag speculation as speculation. If you must discuss implications that go beyond what your data show, explicitly flag those conclusions as speculative and note that they are not supported by your study. By calling speculation what it is, you avoid having others assume that your wildest and most provocative ideas are evidence-based. Speculation is okay as long as everyone reading your paper knows what it is.
Bonus suggestion: If you have a multiple-author paper, the Acknowledgements or Author's Note should specify each author's contributions clearly and completely. By doing so, you assign both credit and blame where it is deserved. For example, when I collaborate on a neuroimaging project, I make clear that I had nothing to do with any of the imaging data collection, coding, or analysis. I should get no credit for that part of a study (given that I know nothing about imaging), but I also should take no blame for any missteps in that part of the project.
source
- Six simple steps scientists can take to avoid having their work misrepresented
- Six Simple Steps to High Quality Coding
- 10 Steps You Can Take To Guarantee Failure 十件必定让你失败的事
- android adb driver can not work on WINDOW XP, it take me 1 hour to fix it up
- Six Steps to write an ILE C CGI program
- 10 simple Tips to Avoid Violating Google Adsense TOS Read more: 10 simple Tips to avoid violating G
- The Eleven Steps to Passion(摘录自 work from passion)
- how to solve sourceinsight can not work
- The simple steps on how to create a standby.
- How To Be More Interesting (In 10 Simple Steps)
- Steps to write a simple batch bat file
- Top 20 replies by Programmers to Testers when their programs don't work
- How To Avoid Disk Full Issues Because OPatch Backups Take Big Amount Of Disk Space. (文档 ID 550522.1)
- hint: specify index/type/name arguments for simple parameters to avoid type ambiguities
- LaTeX - Can't get Bibtex to work with Texworks (MikTex)
- 053-9 To view the results of a manual SQL Tuning Advisor task, which steps should the DBA take?
- 9 To view the results of a manual SQL Tuning Advisor task, which steps should the DBA take? A. From
- How to Debug C Program using gdb in 6 Simple Steps
- __iomem解析
- 持续集成 编年史 之 持续集成探索---平台选择
- leetcode Surrounded Regions
- c++ 调试程序log使用
- android中sqlite数据库查询优化方法
- Six simple steps scientists can take to avoid having their work misrepresented
- 植物叶子的实时渲染
- Linux设备驱动开发详解-Note(11)--- Linux 文件系统与设备文件系统(3)
- OpenStack Swift源码分析(1)----swift服务启动源码分析之一
- 局部刷新UITableView
- 黑马程序员---银行业务调度系统
- hdu 1085 Holding Bin-Laden Captive!
- LPC2103学习之定时器0和定时器1 .
- loner_li SQL 存储过程详解