In a recent edition of the New Scientist (16 June 2010) the editorial discussed cracks in the peer review system. Staff at the New Scientist analysed a range of scientific journals and found a strong tendency for American researchers to be published faster and in higher profile journals than their rivals elsewhere. Th New Scientist undertook the analysis because a group of researchers had recently taken the unusual step of writing a letter to a leading journal complaining of ‘unreasonable and obstructive peer reviews’. Of course it may simply be that Americans are doing better research, but the New Scientist editorial says we will never know unless peer reviews are published. Some journals are already doing this and the New Scientist hopes this practice increases so that justice can be seen to be done. The editorial concludes by saying that ‘peer review may be flawed but it is the least-worst system we’ve got’.
Posts archived in Psychological research (inferential statistics)
There’s a useful presentation on experimental design to be found here
But equally interesting is the software that has been used to produce it – you can have a play here – it’s really easy to use, and you have to agree the presentations look pretty slick..
I was wondering – this could be used for a quick class experiment: Ask one group to present information using powerpoint (i.e. in a linear fashion), ask another to present the same info using the more hierarchical prezi software, to see if the way in which information is organised affects recall in independent groups of subjects?
I showed this video at a number of recent psychology conferences when I was talking about research methods, and thought I would share it on this site because it is quite entertaining.
Change blindness describes how people are quite poor at noticing change, something demonstrated in a number of studies (see also Daniel Simon and Daniel Levin’s classic ‘door study‘ or Richard Wiseman’s colour changing card trick or just look up change blindness).
Change blindness is different from inattentional blindness where people do not see things which are in plain sight – famously demonstrated in this video (and by Daniel Simons) this one from Richard Wiseman.
You may ask why I was using the video when talking about research methods – I suggested that students might think of ways to further test these phenomena. For example there is evidence that people are more likely to notice change if the other people are the same age as themselves.
Many of you may not be aware that the BPS published new documents relating to ethical practice in August 2009 which you can access here. There has been quite a considerable shift of emphasis. There is now a general document ‘Code of Ethics and Conduct’ which identifies four overriding principles: respect, competence, responsibility and integrity. In conjunction with this are various ethical guidelines such as ‘Ethical principles for conducting research with human participants’ and ‘Guidelines for minimum standards of ethical approval in psychological research’. There are also guidelines for conducting research on the internet, research within the NHS, research with people who do not have the capacity to consent and research with animals.
In the document on research with human participants the following issues are discussed: consent, deception, debriefing, withdrawal from the investigation, confidentiality, protection of participants and privacy in observational research.
The case of Simon Singh has challenged British libel laws. Simon Singh is a science writer – having authored best selling books such as Fermat’s Last Theorem and contributing regularly to The Guardian. In 2008 he was sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association (BCA) because of an article he wrote pointing out that some of the treatments offered are bogus, such as those for treating child colic and feeding problems. Singh’s view was that such practice was pseudoscientific and not evidence-based. However the BCA’s claim is that Singh has no evidence to support this and therefore his views are libelous. Within the scientific community this is regarded a challenge to the very nature of science – it should not be libelous to ask a scientist ‘where’s your evidence’ – in fact such a move would stifle the progress of science. Singh’s case and campaign has gained very high profile support from the science and entertainment business (including Jonathan Ross and Stephen Fry) – you can see the names and read much more about the case here (KEEP LIBEL LAWS OUT OF SCIENCE) or here.
Just found this excellent set of ‘Mind Bites’ – funky little poster style summaries of psychological research. Excellent I think for lessons on hypothesis formulation and testing.
There’s also a brilliant photo archive here, containing hundreds of images of old psychological research equipment. (Including Milgram’s fake shock machine). I love all this stuff…. maybe it’s a bloke thing, but I love the aesthetics of it… all that wonderful old brass gadgetry and paraphenalia, all a bit Heath Robinson or old skool Doctor Who… Certainly useful in illustrating the empirical, laboratory-based aspects of psychology.