Drang naar Samenhang

It's becoming a trend: another guest blog post. This time, J.P. de Ruiter shares his view, which I happen to share, on the value of experience in criticizing research. J.P. de Ruiter Tufts University One of the reasons that the scientific method was such a brilliant idea is that it has criticism built into the process. We don’t believe something on the basis of authority, but we need to be convinced by relevant data and sound arguments, and if we think that either the data or the argument is flawed, we say this. Before a study is conducted, this criticism is usually provided by colleagues, or in case of preregistration, reviewers. After a study is submitted, critical evaluations are performed by reviewers and editors. But even after publication, the criticism continues, in the form of discussions in follow-up articles, at conferences, and/or on social media. This self-corrective aspect of science is essential, hence criticism, even though at times it can be difficul

Today a first in this blog: a guest post! In this post Alexa Tullett reflects on the consequences of Fox's data manipulation, which I described in the previous post , for her own research and that of her collaborator, Will Hart. Alexa Tullett University of Alabama [Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this post are my own and not the views of my employer] When I read Rolf’s previous post about the verb aspect RRR I resonated with much of what he said. I have been in Rolf’s position before as an outside observer of scientific fraud, and I have a lot of admiration for his work in exposing what happened here.   In this case, I’m not an outside observer. Although I was not involved with the RRR that Rolf describes in detail, I was a collaborator of Fox’s (I’ll keep up the pseudonym) and my name is on papers that have been, or are in the process of being retracted. I also continue to be a collaborator of Will Hart’s, and hope to be for a long time to come. Rolf has be