Warning: file_get_contents(https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&id=29780193
&cmd=llinks): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 215
Basic Appl Soc Psych
2017[]; 39
(5
): 239-246
PMID29780193
show ga
Problems in science publishing involving publication bias, null hypothesis
significance testing (NHST), and irreproducibility of reported results have been
widely cited. Numerous attempts to ameliorate these problems have included
statistical methods to assess and correct for publication bias, and
recommendation or development of statistical methodologies to replace NHST where
some journals have even instituted a policy of banning manuscripts reporting use
of NHST. In an effort to mitigate these problems, a policy of "results blind
evaluation" of manuscripts submitted to journals is recommended, in which results
reported in manuscripts are given no weight in the decision as to the suitability
of the manuscript for publication. Weight would be given exclusively to (a) the
judged importance of the research question addressed in the study, typically
conveyed in the Introduction section of the manuscript, and (b) the quality of
the methodology of the study, including appropriateness of data analysis methods,
as reported in the Methods section. As a practical method of implementing such a
policy, a two-stage process is suggested whereby the editor initially distributes
only the Introduction and Methods sections of a submitted manuscript to reviewers
for evaluation and a provisional decision regarding acceptance or rejection for
publication is made. A second stage of review follows in which the complete
manuscript is distributed for review but only if the decision of the first stage
is for acceptance with no more than minor revision.
free
free
free
