Scientific progress is like doing a puzzle, not building a wall

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexa Mary Tullett ◽  
Simine Vazire
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Progress ◽  
Original Research ◽  
Jigsaw Puzzle ◽  
Replication Research

We contest the “building a wall” analogy of scientific progress. We argue that this analogy unfairly privileges original research (which is perceived as laying bricks, and therefore constructive) over replication research (which is perceived as testing and removing bricks, and therefore destructive). We propose an alternative analogy for scientific progress: solving a jigsaw puzzle.

Scientific progress is like doing a puzzle, not building a wall

2018 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexa M. Tullett ◽  
Simine Vazire
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Progress ◽  
Original Research ◽  
Jigsaw Puzzle ◽  
Replication Research

AbstractWe contest the “building a wall” analogy of scientific progress. We argue that this analogy unfairly privileges original research (which is perceived as laying bricks and, therefore, constructive) over replication research (which is perceived as testing and removing bricks and, therefore, destructive). We propose an alternative analogy for scientific progress: solving a jigsaw puzzle.

scholarly journals Standing on the shoulders of Giants: a citation analysis of the paediatric congenital heart disease literature

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Daniel P. Sew ◽  
Nigel E. Drury
Keyword(s):  
Citation Analysis ◽  
San Francisco ◽  
Citation Count ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Scientific Progress ◽  
The United States ◽  
Original Research ◽  
Prolific Author ◽  
Journal Citation Reports ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Objective: The citation history of a published article reflects its impact on the literature over time. We conducted a comprehensive bibliometric analysis to identify the most cited papers on CHD in children. Methods: One-hundred and ninety journals listed in Journal Citation Reports were accessed via Web of Science. Publications with 250 or more citations were identified from Science Citation Index Expanded (1900–2020), and those relating to structural CHD in children were reviewed. Articles were ranked by citation count and the 100 most cited were analysed. Results: The number of citations ranged from 2522 to 309 (median 431, IQR 356–518), with 35 published since 2000. All were written in English, most originated from the United States (74%), and were published in cardiovascular journals, with Circulation (28%) the most frequent. There were 86 original research articles, including 50 case series, 14 cohort studies, and 10 clinical trials. The most cited paper was by Hoffman JI and Kaplan S on the incidence of CHD. Thirteen authors had 4 or more publications in the top 100, all of whom had worked in Boston, Philadelphia, San Francisco, or Dallas, and the most prolific author was Newburger JW (9 articles). Conclusions: Citation analysis provides a historical perspective on scientific progress by assessing the impact of individual articles. Our study highlights the dominant position of US-based researchers and journals in this field. Most of the highly cited articles remain case series, with few randomised controlled trials in CHD appearing in recent years.

scholarly journals Measuring article impact with another metric: Impact Order

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ismail Sahin
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Knowledge ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Scientific Progress ◽  
Factor H ◽  
Original Research ◽  
H Index ◽  
A Chain ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Article Impact

Various quantitative and qualitative metrics have been developed for assessing journals, individual researchers and articles, mainly based on the number of published items and their citations, such as Impact Factor, h-index, Eigenfactor, Cited Half-Life, etc. The reason of developing various assessment measures may be based on two grounds: scientific and commercial. Either one has its own merits to serve the scientific community in particular and the whole public in general. The search for refining the existing metrics and/or developing new ones will continue to better serve the needs.Scientific inquiry leads to the generation of scientific knowledge. The common way of sharing and dissemination of this outcome is to publish in scientific journals. The accumulation of scientific knowledge is accepted as a sign of scientific progress. This accumulation occurs in a chain relation through citing previously published associated papers in a newly published paper. This citation chain is a forward propagation of knowledge accumulation. The fusion of the knowledge is expected to lead the progress towards new questions and inquiries in this endless effort of scientific research.In this study a new metric named Impact Order (IO) is proposed. Citations play a major role to determine the Impact Order as in other assessing metrics. The Impact Order backtracks the papers through their citations from the current paper towards the seeding paper, which contains the original research question and investigation. The Impact Order of a paper in this citation chain is the number of papers citing the concerned paper without braking the chain. Hence, the Impact Order of a paper is a metric measuring the number of papers (scientific inquiries) that have been impacted (or led) by that paper. The Impact Order of a paper is an indicator to assess the quality of a paper by measuring the number of papers inspired by that paper and also by measuring the life-cycle of the concerned paper through its citation chain.

Patterns of citations for the growth of knowledge: a Foucauldian perspective

2019 ◽  
Vol 75 (3) ◽  
pp. 593-611
Author(s):  
Nik Rushdi Hassan ◽  
Alexander Serenko
Keyword(s):  
Design Methodology ◽  
Scientific Progress ◽  
Original Research ◽  
Content Type ◽  
New Concepts ◽  
Growth Of Knowledge ◽  
Foucauldian Theory ◽  
Foucauldian Analysis ◽  
Qualitative Characteristics ◽  
Quantitative Evaluations

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to sensitize researchers to qualitative citation patterns that characterize original research, contribute toward the growth of knowledge and, ultimately, promote scientific progress. Design/methodology/approach This study describes how ideas are intertextually inserted into citing works to create new concepts and theories, thereby contributing to the growth of knowledge. By combining existing perspectives and dimensions of citations with Foucauldian theory, this study develops a typology of qualitative citation patterns for the growth of knowledge and uses examples from two classic works to illustrate how these citation patterns can be identified and applied. Findings A clearer understanding of the motivations behind citations becomes possible by focusing on the qualitative patterns of citations rather than on their quantitative features. The proposed typology includes the following patterns: original, conceptual, organic, juxtapositional, peripheral, persuasive, acknowledgment, perfunctory, inconsistent and plagiaristic. Originality/value In contrast to quantitative evaluations of the role and value of citations, this study focuses on the qualitative characteristics of citations, in the form of specific patterns of citations that engender original and novel research and those that may not. By integrating Foucauldian analysis of discourse with existing theories of citations, this study offers a more nuanced and refined typology of citations that can be used by researchers to gain a deeper semantic understanding of citations.

scholarly journals Is it reliable and valid if it is not replicable? On the importance of replicability in quantitative research

2020 ◽  
pp. 33-38
Author(s):  
Loreta Vilkienė ◽  
Laura Vilkaitė-Lozdienė ◽  
Rita Juknevičienė ◽  
Justina Bružaitė-Liseckienė ◽  
Kinga Geben ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Language Learning ◽  
Quantitative Research ◽  
Original Research ◽  
Developmental Studies ◽  
Reading Group ◽  
Learning And Teaching ◽  
Replication Studies ◽  
Replication Research ◽  
Vilnius University ◽  
Access Data

The idea of this paper arose in a reading group of several colleagues at the Faculty of Philology of Vilnius University after a discussion of a review article published by the editors of Language Teaching. Titled ‘Replication studies in language learning and teaching’ (2008), the paper focuses on replication studies and argues that they should be promoted and valued no less than original research. The participants of the reading group agreed that replication studies, understood here primarily as replications of quantitative research, are indeed an important issue that could be of interest to the broader community of applied linguists in Lithuania. The present paper argues that attempts to replicate earlier studies, which are very scarce or non-existent in Lithuania, deserve more attention both from novice and mature researchers. Replications are particularly valuable in developmental studies where replicating a study over a period of time allows the researcher to obtain data for continued analysis. Furthermore, a replication of a published study that deals with data collected in one country offers an opportunity to verify its findings in a different context and this way consolidates our understanding of phenomena under study. Finally, replication is an invaluable learning method to a novice linguist, be it a senior undergraduate or postgraduate student. Thus the authors of this paper would like to promote the idea of replication research in our community as well as encourage everyone interested make use of the increasingly growing amount of open access data available on the internet.

scholarly journals Rewarding Replications

2012 ◽  
Vol 7 (6) ◽  
pp. 608-614 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sander L. Koole ◽  
Daniël Lakens
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Base ◽  
Scientific Progress ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Original Research ◽  
Narrative Approach ◽  
Collaborative Effort ◽  
Incentive Structure ◽  
Scientific Publications ◽  
Effective Manner ◽  
Teaching Programs

Although replications are vital to scientific progress, psychologists rarely engage in systematic replication efforts. In this article, we consider psychologists’ narrative approach to scientific publications as an underlying reason for this neglect and propose an incentive structure for replications within psychology. First, researchers need accessible outlets for publishing replications. To accomplish this, psychology journals could publish replication reports in files that are electronically linked to reports of the original research. Second, replications should get cited. This can be achieved by cociting replications along with original research reports. Third, replications should become a valued collaborative effort. This can be realized by incorporating replications in teaching programs and by stimulating adversarial collaborations. The proposed incentive structure for replications can be developed in a relatively simple and cost-effective manner. By promoting replications, this incentive structure may greatly enhance the dependability of psychology’s knowledge base.

scholarly journals Preface

2021 ◽  
Vol 884 (1) ◽  
pp. 011001
Keyword(s):  
Sustainable Development ◽  
Emergency Response ◽  
Sustainable Development Goals ◽  
Hazard Mitigation ◽  
Scientific Progress ◽  
Original Research ◽  
Response Period ◽  
International Conference ◽  
Development Goals ◽  
The Government

The Faculty of Social Sciences, Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta in collaboration with the Department of Geography of the Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris (UPSI) Malaysia, the Geography Department of Chulalongkorn University (CU) Thailand, the Geography Department of the University of Muhammadiyah Surakarta (UMS) Indonesia, and the Indonesian Geographical Association held The 2nd International Conference on Hazard Mitigation in Geographic and Education Perspectives (The 2nd ICHMGEP) on "Disaster Management for Enhancing Resilience, Risk Reduction and Sustainable Development Goals". This conference continues the tradition of scientific meetings (The 1st ICHMGEP) organized in 2018, which successfully gathered hundreds of participants and published conference papers in international publication outlets. The 2nd ICHMGEP 2020 provides a platform for researchers, lecturers, students, practitioners, and scientists to showcase their latest findings in areas of expertise, including geoscience, environment, science and technology innovation, mapping, and technological innovation. In addition, it aims to disseminate original research results, new ideas, innovations, practical experiments to promote scientific progress and achieve sustainable development goals. The 2nd ICHMGEP 2020 had formerly been planned to be organized in an offline format. However, it was conducted online on September 11-12, 2020 mainly due to the Covid-19 pandemic impacts. The increasing number of Covid-19 positive cases in Yogyakarta Province since March 2020 forced the government to carry out various restrictions on activities gathering many people like a conference. This is supported by the issuance of the Covid-19 emergency response period in Yogyakarta, Indonesia from March 20 - May 29 2020. Moreover, the emergency response period was extended on May 30 - June 30 2020, 1 - 31 July 2020, 1 - 31 August 2020, and 1 - 30 September 2020. In addition, the Covid-19 pandemic offered uncertainty and was difficult to be predicted when it would end. Therefore, the organizing committee decided to change the offline format into an online format as the conference would provide great benefit for the wider community including giving solutions to cope with covid-19 related problems. Also, many supportive platforms such as zoom dan live youtube could facilitate the implementation of the online conference List of Rundown The 2nd International Conference On Hazard Mitigation In Geographic And Education Perspectives (ICHMGEP) 2020, Room Distribution For Parallel Session 12 September 2020, Platform: Zoom, Images, Committee of The 2nd ICHMGEP 2020 are available in this pdf.

scholarly journals Nature of Our Literature

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosie Twomey ◽  
Vanessa Yingling ◽  
Joe Warne ◽  
Christoph Schneider ◽  
Christopher McCrum ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Positive Result ◽  
Scientific Literature ◽  
Scientific Progress ◽  
Natural World ◽  
Trial Registration ◽  
High Rate ◽  
Significance Testing ◽  
Original Research ◽  
Reporting Practices ◽  
Poor Reporting

Scientists rely upon an accurate scientific literature in order to build and test new theories about the natural world. In the past decade, observational studies of the scientific literature have indicated that numerous questionable research practices and poor reporting practices may be hindering scientific progress. In particular, 3 recent studies have indicated an implausibly high rate of studies with positive (i.e., hypothesis confirming) results. In sports medicine, a field closely related to kinesiology, studies that tested a hypothesis indicated support for their primary hypothesis ~70% of the time. However, a study of journals that cover the entire field of kinesiology has yet to be completed, and the quality of other reporting practices, such as clinical trial registration, has not been evaluated. In this study we retrospectively evaluated 300 original research articles from the flagship journals of North America (Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise), Europe (European Journal of Sport Science), and Australia (Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport). The hypothesis testing rate (~64%) and positive result rate (~81%) were much lower than what has been reported in other fields (e.g., psychology), and there was only weak evidence for our hypothesis that the positive result rate exceeded 80%. However, the positive result rate is still considered unreasonably high. Additionally, most studies did not report trial registration, and rarely included accessible data indicating rather poor reporting practices. The majority of studies relied upon significance testing (~92%), but it was more concerning that a majority of studies (~82%) without a stated hypothesis still relied upon significance testing. Overall, the positive result rate in kinesiology is unacceptably high, despite being lower than other fields such as psychology, and most published manuscripts demonstrated subpar reporting practices

Replications can cause distorted belief in scientific progress

2018 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michał Białek
Keyword(s):  
Real World ◽  
Scientific Progress ◽  
The Public ◽  
Psychological Science

AbstractIf we want psychological science to have a meaningful real-world impact, it has to be trusted by the public. Scientific progress is noisy; accordingly, replications sometimes fail even for true findings. We need to communicate the acceptability of uncertainty to the public and our peers, to prevent psychology from being perceived as having nothing to say about reality.

Holding replication studies to mainstream standards of evidence

2018 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Duane T. Wegener ◽  
Leandre R. Fabrigar
Keyword(s):  
Replication Studies ◽  
Replication Research ◽  
Standards Of Evidence ◽  
Do So

AbstractReplications can make theoretical contributions, but are unlikely to do so if their findings are open to multiple interpretations (especially violations of psychometric invariance). Thus, just as studies demonstrating novel effects are often expected to empirically evaluate competing explanations, replications should be held to similar standards. Unfortunately, this is rarely done, thereby undermining the value of replication research.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document