Causal theory error in college students’ understanding of science studies

When reasoning about science studies, people often make causal theory errors by inferring or accepting a causal claim based on correlational evidence. While humans naturally think in terms of causal relationships, reasoning about science findings requires understanding how evidence supports—or fails to support—a causal claim. This study investigated college students’ thinking about causal claims presented in brief media reports describing behavioral science findings. How do science students reason about causal claims from correlational evidence? And can their reasoning be improved through instruction clarifying the nature of causal theory error? We examined these questions through a series of written reasoning exercises given to advanced college students over three weeks within a psychology methods course. In a pretest session, students critiqued study quality and support for a causal claim from a brief media report suggesting an association between two variables. Then, they created diagrams depicting possible alternative causal theories. At the beginning of the second session, an instructional intervention introduced students to an extended example of a causal theory error through guided questions about possible alternative causes. Then, they completed the same two tasks with new science reports immediately and again 1 week later. The results show students’ reasoning included fewer causal theory errors after the intervention, and this improvement was maintained a week later. Our findings suggest that interventions aimed at addressing reasoning about causal claims in correlational studies are needed even for advanced science students, and that training on considering alternative causal theories may be successful in reducing casual theory error.

Good Science

Good Science is an account of psychological research emphasizing the moral foundations of inquiry. This volume brings together existing disciplinary critiques of scientism, objectivism, and instrumentalism, and then discusses how these contribute to institutionalized privilege and to less morally responsive research practices. The author draws on historical, critical, feminist, and science studies traditions to provide an alternative account of psychological science and to highlight the irreducibly moral foundations of everyday scientific practice. This work outlines a theoretical framework for thinking about and practicing psychology in ways that center moral responsibility, collective commitment, and justice. The book then applies this framework, describing psychological research practices in terms of the their moral dilemmas. Also included are materials meant to aid in methods instruction and mentoring.

Using Epistemic Game Development to Teach Software Development Skills

This paper presents a pilot study on the evaluation of instruments for data gathering for an epistemic game development competition for high school students. The initial results show that a significant percentage of the students who participated in the competition appear to exhibit a skillset of professional attitude, software-related knowledge, and employability traits, and this skillset may be attributed to the intervention. The data was validated through a two-method triangulation technique that utilized expert evaluation and participant interviews. The data analysis shows early indicators of the desired learning outcomes, although a more thorough methodology is needed to verify this. Furthermore, the competition acts as an awareness campaign that promotes computer science studies through a gamification process. It is proposed that competitions of this type are held and evaluated on an annual basis to maximize the benefits and to further prepare students to acquire early in their studies a skillset that will make them the innovators of the future society.

Science for Others or the Self? Presumed Motives for Science Shape Public Trust in Science

Science can improve life around the world, but public trust in science is at risk. Understanding presumed motives of scientists and science can inform the social psychological underpinnings of public trust in science. Across five independent datasets, perceiving the motives of science and scientists as prosocial promoted public trust in science. In Studies 1 and 2, perceptions that science was more prosocially oriented was associated with greater trust in science. Studies 3 and 4a-b employed experimental methods to establish that perceiving other-oriented motives, versus self-oriented motives, enhanced public trust in science. Respondents recommend greater funding allocations for science subdomains described as prosocially-oriented vs. power-oriented. Emphasizing the prosocial aspects of science can build stronger foundations of public trust in science.

Science for Others or the Self? Presumed Motives for Science Shape Public Trust in Science

Science can improve life around the world, but public trust in science is at risk. Understanding the presumed motives of scientists and science can inform the social psychological underpinnings of public trust in science. Across five independent datasets, perceiving the motives of science and scientists as prosocial promoted public trust in science. In Studies 1 and 2, perceptions that science was more prosocially oriented were associated with greater trust in science. Studies 3 and 4a & 4b employed experimental methods to establish that perceiving other-oriented motives, versus self-oriented motives, enhanced public trust in science. Respondents recommend greater funding allocations for science subdomains described as prosocially oriented versus power-oriented. Emphasizing the prosocial aspects of science can build stronger foundations of public trust in science.

Funding Sources in Russian-authored Papers in Leading International Journals: the Case of Medicine

We present results of a pioneering survey of funding sources in papers with Russian affiliations published in highly cited international journals in 2010-2020 in the area of medicine and health sciences. We identify major funders both from Russia and abroad, from government, for-profit and non-profit sectors, and conflate them with advanced bibliometric indicators and techniques including author-level fractional counting. We also uncover sectoral differences regarding funding sources for universities and non-teaching institutions. Amongst other findings it is shown that Russian state sources, which were lagging behind foreign, are gaining the lead since 2015, but the Russian-funded papers still tend to have less citations, and lessinternational co-authors. Such results are important for science studies and science policy.

Revistas internacionales de Información y Documentación en Scopus con alta participación española

In order to correctly interpret any study on Spanish production that includes Library and Information Science journals in citation indexes, it is necessary to know in detail what type of publications are being taken as source data. With this objective in mind, 12 foreign publications of this thematic category are analyzed in Scopus that have a higher degree of participation from authors attached to Spanish institutions. Most are owned by multinational publishing companies and are published in English. The production is very interdisciplinary, with a predominance of Scientometrics. As institutions, the CSIC and the universities of Granada, Carlos III of Madrid and Polytechnic of Valencia stand out. Scientometrics journal is the one with the largest number of works, followed by IEEE transactions on information theory and Investigación bibliotecológica. This case is the only magazine in Spanish of the 12 publications analyzed and the only title in which Library Science studies predominate. Resumen Para poder interpretar correctamente cualquier estudio sobre producción española que incluya revistas de Información y Documentación en los índices de citas se hace necesario conocer en detalle qué tipo de publicaciones se están tomando como datos fuente. Con este objetivo se analizan las 12 publicaciones extranjeras de esta categoría temática en Scopus que cuentan con un mayor grado de participación de autores adscritos a instituciones españolas. La mayoría pertenecen a grupos editoriales multinacionales y se editan en inglés. La producción es muy interdisciplinar, con predominio de la Cienciometría. Como instituciones destacan el CSIC y las universidades de Granada, Carlos III de Madrid y Politècnica de València. La revista Scientometrics es la que reúne mayor número de trabajos, seguida por IEEE transactions on information theory e Investigación bibliotecológica. Esta última es la única revista en español de las 12 analizadas y el único título en el que predominan los estudios de Biblioteconomía.

An Improved Assessment Method and Its Application to the Latest IMERG Rainfall Product in Mainland China

Quantification of uncertainties associated with satellite precipitation products is a prior requirement for their better applications in earth science studies. An improved scheme is developed in this study to decompose mean bias error (MBE) and mean square error (MSE) into three components, i.e., MBE and MSE associated hits, missed precipitation, and false alarms, respectively, which are weighted by their relative frequencies of occurrence (RFO). The trend of total MBE or MSE is then naturally decomposed into six components according to the chain rule for derivatives. Quantitative estimation of individual contributions to total MBE and MSE is finally derived. The method is applied to validation of Integrated MultisatellitE Retrievals for GPM (IMERG) in Mainland China. MBE associated with false alarms is an important driver for total MBE, while MSE associated with hits accounts for more than 85% of MSE, except in inland semi-arid area. The RFO of false alarms increases, whereas the RFO of missed precipitation decreases. Both factors lead in part to a growing trend for total MBE. Detection of precipitation should be improved in the IMERG algorithm. More specifically, the priority should be to reduce false alarms.

Citation in science and approaches to the evaluation of scientific contributions

The editorial board brings to your attention a reprint of the article by S.G.Kara-Murza, published in 1981. The author personally met and debated with the creator of the Science Citation Index Eugene Garfield: recognizing the importance of bibliometry for science studies, Sergey Georgievich defends the inadmissibility of using citation indexes to evaluate the scientific contribution of individual researchers and scientific organizations. It would require the fulfillment of a number of unrealizable conditions in practice so that the citation could not distort the scientific contribution. After four decades since the publication of the article, it must be recognized that the relevance of the problem has not exhausted itself. Measuring the effectiveness of scientists by formal quantitative parameters has taken root to the status of official for scientific reports, aggravated by the prioritization of journal articles in comparison with fundamental monographic works. Arguments have repeatedly been heard in the scientific community explaining the problematic nature of objective indicators for assessing the productivity and scientific significance and scientific potential of scientists, especially in the field of socio-humanitarian knowledge. The discussion on the introduction of quantitative methods for evaluating the effectiveness of scientists' work continues. In this regard, the editorial board of the journal considers it appropriate to invite our readers to familiarize themselves with the point of view set forth in the publication of the famous scientist S.G.Kara-Murza 40 years ago.