Author:
Ágnes Szokolszky
Ágnes Szokolszky
Szegedi Tudományegyetem, Pszichológiai Intézet, Kognitív és Neuropszichológiai Tanszék
Search for other papers by Ágnes Szokolszky in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Ágnes Szokolszky in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
A 2010-es évek elején a tudományos pszichológiában kibontakozó működési zavarok és válságérzet (a tudományos csalások és visszavont publikációk számának megnövekedése, a vitatható kutatási eljárások, a gyenge vagy kétséges cikkek megjelenése vezető folyóiratokban, és a tudományos kommunikáció torzulásai) a Brian Nosek és munkatársai nevével jelzett „Megismétlési Projektben” (2011–2015) csúcsosodtak ki, egyfajta bizalmi válságot hozva létre. A pszichológiának szembe kellett néznie (más tudományágakkal együtt) a kutatási eredmények validitását és megbízhatóságát érintő problémákkal. Az alapos önvizsgálat sokféle – nem feltétlenül új keletű – hiányosságot tárt fel, amelyek különböző mértékben érintették a különböző kutatási területeket. Ilyen volt a pontos megismétlések hiánya, a konceptuális megismétlések visszásságai, a kutatói hipotézist nem igazoló negatív eredmények mostoha státusza, és az ezzel járó publikációs torzulás, a kutatói hipotézist alaptalanul megerősítő (hamis pozitív) eredmények elterjedtsége, és a nullhipotézis- teszteléssel és a statisztika alkalmazásával kapcsolatos korántsem új kritikák. A 2010-es évek vége felé már megfelelő rálátásunk van a feltárt problémákra, jobban értjük az okokat és háttértényezőket, és új megoldási módok és ajánlások is megfogalmazódtak. E tanulmányban a válság fő okainak, szimptómáinak és tanulságainak áttekintésére vállalkozom, és a kibontakozó reformmozgalom nyomán jelentkező új eljárásokra és ajánlásokra hívom fel a figyelmet. A pszichológia e válságperiódusban bizonyította önkorrekciós képességét. A kutatási és publikációs gyakorlatot a jobb működés irányába mutató impulzusok érik, de ezek hatása csak úgy tud érvényesülni, ha a kutatók mint egyének és mint kutatói közösségek tudatosabban viszonyulnak a problémák megoldásához.
ProCite
RefWorks
Reference Manager
BibTeX
Zotero
EndNote
-
Akst, J. (2012). Scientists review own papers. The Scientist, Online, 2012 Oct.3. https://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/32810/title/Scientists-Review-Own-Papers/Letöltve: 2017.12.20.
-
Alcock, J. (2003). Give the null hypothesis a chance: Reasons to remain doubtful about the existence of psi. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 10(6–7), 29–50.
-
Anderson, M. S., Ronning, E. A., De Vries, R., & Martinson B. C. (2007). The perverse effects of competition on scientists’ work and relationships. Science and Engineering Ethics. 13, 437–461.
-
Bakker, M., Hartgerink, C. H., Wicherts, J. M., & van der Maas, H. L. (2016). Researchers’ intuitions about power in psychological research. Psychological Science, 27(8), 1069–1077.
-
Banks, G. C., Rogelberg, S. G., Woznyj, H. M., Landis, R. S., & Rupp, D. E. (2016). Evidence on questionable research practices: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Editorial. Business and Psychology, 31(3), 323–338.
-
Barch, D. M, & Yarkoni, T. (2013). Introduction to the special issue on reliability and replication in cognitive and affective neuroscience research. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience, 13, 687–689.
-
Bárdits A. , & Németh R. (2017). A statisztikai szignifikanciateszt rítusa – kortárs kritikák; a rítus a szociológiában. Szociológiai Szemle, 27(1), 119–125.
-
Bárdits A. , Németh R., & Terplán G. (2016). Egy régi probléma újra előtérben: a nullhipotézis szignifikanciateszt téves gyakorlata. Statisztikai Szemle, 94(1), 52–75.
-
Bargh, J. A., Chen M., & Burrows, L. (1996). Automaticity of social behavior: direct effects of trait construct and stereotype-activation on action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 230–244.
-
Bartling, S., & Friesike, S. (2014). Opening science: The evolving guide on how the internet is changing research, collaboration and scholarly publishing. Springer Open. Springer International Publishing.
-
Begley, C. G., & Ellis, L. M. (2012). Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature, 483(7391), 531–533.
-
Bem, D. J. (2011). Feeling the future: Experimental evidence for anomalous retroactive influences on cognition and affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(3), 407–425.
-
Binswanger, M. (2014). Excellence by nonsense: The competition for publications in modern science. In S. Bartling & S. Friesike (Eds). Opening science: The evolving guide on how the internet is changing research, collaboration and scholarly publishing. Springer Open (pp. 49–72). Springer International Publishing.
-
Bornmann, L., & Mutz, R. (2015). Growth rates of modern science: A bibliometric analysis based on the number of publications and cited references. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(11), 2215–2222.
-
Bozzo, A., Bali, K., Evaniew, N., & Ghert, M. (2017). Retractions in cancer research: a systematic survey. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 2(1), 5.
-
Brechman, J. M., Lee, C. J., & Cappella, J. N. (2011). Distorting genetic research about cancer: from bench science to press release to published news. Journal of Communication, 61(3), 496–513.
-
Brown, P. (2012). Nothing but the truth. Are the media as bad at communicating science as scientists fear? EMBO Reports, 13(11), 964–967.
-
Buranyi, S. (2017). The hi-tech war on science fraud. The Guardian, online: 2017.02.01. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/feb/01/high-tech-war-on-science Letöltve: 2018.05.19.
-
Button, K. S., Ioannidis, J. P., Mokrysz, C., Nosek, B. A., Flint, J., Robinson, E. S., & Munafò, M. R. (2013). Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 14(5), 365–376.
-
Carney, D. R., Cuddy, A. J., & Yap, A. J. (2010). Power posing: Brief nonverbal displays affect neuroendocrine levels and risk tolerance. Psychological Science, 21(10), 1363–1368.
-
Chambers, C. (2014). Psychology’s ‘Registration Revolution.’. The Guardian. Science section, online: 2014 May 2. https://www.theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2014/may/20/psychology-registration-revolution Letöltve: 2017.12.22.
-
Cohen, J. (1995). The earth is round (p<.05): Rejoinder. American Psychologist, 50, 997–1103.
-
Cuddy, A. (2015). Presence: Bringing your boldest self to your biggest challenge. New York: Little, Brown and Company.
-
Cumming, G. (2014). The new statistics: Why and how. Psychological Science, 25 (1) 7–29.
-
Csaba L. , Szentes T., & Zalai. E. (2014). Tudományos-e a tudománymérés? Megjegyzések a tudománymetria, az impakt faktor és az MTMT használatához. Magyar Tudomány, 175(4), 442–466.
-
De Groot, A. D. (1969/2014). The meaning of “significance” for different types of research. Translated and annotated by Eric-Jan Wagenmakers et. al. Acta Psychologica, 148, 188–194.
-
Dienes Z. (2007). Mitől tudomány a pszichológia? A tudományos és statisztikai következtetés alapjai. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
-
Dilworth, C. (2008). Scientific progress. A study concerning the nature of the relation between successive scientific theories. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
-
Dominus, S. (2017) When the revolution came for Amy Cuddy. The New York Times, online: 18.10.2017. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/18/magazine/when-the-revolution-camefor-amy-cuddy.html Letöltve: 2017.12.20.
-
DORA / Declaration on Research Assessment (2017). Annual Meeting of The American Society for Cell Biology (ASCB) in San Francisco, CA, (December 16, 2012), Online: http://www.ascb.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/sfdora.pdf Letöltve: 2017.09.23.
-
Doyen, S., Klein, O., Pichon, C. L., & Cleeremans, A. (2012). Behavioral priming: it’s all in the mind, but whose mind? PloS One, 7(1), e29081.
-
Durante, K. M., Rae, A., & Griskevicius, V. (2013). The fluctuating female vote: Politics, religion, and the ovulatory cycle. Psychological Science, 24(6), 1007–1016.
-
Editorial (2010). The university student as a model organism. Nature, Neuroscience, 13(5), 521. https://www.nature.com/articles/nn0510-521.pdf Letöltve: 2018.10.28.
-
Editorial (2011). Combating scientific misconduct. National Cell Biology, 13(1), 1.
-
Engber, Daniel (2017). The Trials of Amy Cuddy. A feminist psychologist was dragged through the mud for her mistakes. Did she deserve it? Online: 2017. Oct. 19. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2017/10/did_power_posing_guru_amy_cuddy deserve her_public shaming.html Letöltve: 2017.12.20.
-
Errington, T. M., Iorns, E., Gunn, W., Tan, F. E., Lomax, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2014). An open investigation of the reproducibility of cancer biology research. Elife, 3, e04333.
-
Fanelli, D. (2009). How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS One, 4(5), 1–11.
-
Fanelli, D. (2012). Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries. Scientometrics, 90, 891–904.
-
Fanelli, D. (2010). Do pressures to publish increase scientists’ bias? An empirical support from US States Data. PloS One, 5(4), e10271.
-
Fanelli, D. (2010). Positive” results increase down the hierarchy of the sciences. PloS One, 5.4: e10068.
-
Fanelli, D. (2011). Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries. Scientometrics, 90, 891–904.
-
Fang, F. C., Steen, R. G., & Casadevall, A. (2012). Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(42), 17028–17033.
-
Fang, F. C., & Casadevall, A. (2015). Competitive science: is competition ruining science? Infection and Immunity, IAI-02939.
-
Ferguson, C. J., & Heene, M. (2012). A vast graveyard of undead theories: Publication bias and psychological science’s aversion to the null. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 555–561.
-
Fiedler, K. (2011). Voodoo correlations are everywhere – not only in neuroscience. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(2), 163–171.
-
Finkel, E. J., Eastwick, P. W., & Reis, H. T. (2015). Best research practices in psychology: Illustrating epistemological and pragmatic considerations with the case of relationship science. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108(2), 275.
-
Flaherty, D. K. (2011). The vaccine-autism connection: a public health crisis caused by unethical medical practices and fraudulent science. Annals of Pharmacotherapy, 45(10), 1302–1304.
-
Francis, G. (2012). Too good to be true: Publication bias in two prominent studies from experimental psychology. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19(2), 151–156.
-
Franco, G. (2013). Research evaluation and competition for academic positions in occupational medicine. Archives of Environmental & Occupational Health, 68(2), 123–127.
-
Frank, M. C., & Saxe, R. (2012). Teaching replication. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 600–604.
-
Gadbury GL , Allison DB (2012). Inappropriate fiddling with statistical analyses to obtain a desirable p-value: Tests to detect its presence in published literature. PLoS One, 7(10): e46363. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0046363 Letöltve: 2017.12.10.
-
Galak, J., LeBoeuf, R. A., Nelson, L. D., & Simmons, J. P. (2012). Correcting the past: Failures to replicate psi. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103: 933–948.
-
Gelman, A. (2013). How can statisticians help psychologists do their research better? Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Sciences Blog. Online: 2013 May 17. http://andrewgelman.com/2013/05/17/how-can-statisticians-help-psychologists-do-their-research-better/
-
Gelman, A., & Loken, E. (2013). The garden of forking paths: Why multiple comparisons can be a problem, even when there is no “fishing expedition”. Online: 2013. Nov. 14. http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/unpublished/p_hacking.pdf Letöltve: 2017.09.20.
-
Gelman, Andrew & Fung, K. (2016). The Power of the “Power Pose” Amy Cuddy’s famous finding is the latest example of scientific overreach. Slate Online: 2016.01.19. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2016/01/amy_cuddy_s_power_pose_researchis_the_latest_example_of_scientific_overreach.html Letöltve: 2017.10.01.
-
Goldin-Meadow, S. (2016). Why preregistration makes me nervous. APS Observer, 29(7). https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/why-preregistration-makes-me-nervous Letöltve: 2018.12.06.
-
Hauser, M. D., Weiss, D., & Marcus, G. (2002). RETRACTED: Rule learning by cotton-top tamarins. Cognition, 86(1), B15–B22.
-
Hayward, E. O., & Homer, B. D. (2017). Reliability and validity of advanced theory-of-mind measures in middle childhood and adolescence. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 35(3), 454–462.
-
Head, M. L., Holman, L., Lanfear, R., Kahn, A. T., & Jennions, M. D. (2015). The extent and consequences of p-hacking in science. PLoS Biology, 13(3), e1002106.
-
Heene, M., & Ferguson, C. J. (2017). Psychological science’s aversion to the null, and why many of the things you think are true, aren’t. In S.O. Lilienfeld, & I.D. Waldman, (Eds). Psychological science under scrutiny: Recent challenges and proposed solutions (pp. 34–52). John Wiley & Sons.
-
Henrich J. , Heine S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavior and Brain Sciences, 33(2–3), 61–83.
-
Henson, R. K., & Smith, A. D. (2000). State of the art in statistical significance and effect size reporting: A review of the APA Task Force report and current trends. Journal of Research & Development in Education, 33, 285–296.
-
Hibbing, J. R., Smith, K. B., & Alford, J. R. (2014). Predisposed: Liberals, conservatives, and the biology of political differences. New York and London: Routledge.
-
Iacobucci, D. (2005). On p-values. Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (1) 6–11.
-
Interlandi, J. 2006. An unwelcome discovery. New York Times, New York, NY. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/22/magazine/22sciencefraud.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0. Letöltve: 2018.10.28.
-
Ioannidis, J. P. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine, 2(8), e124.
-
Ioannidis, J. P. (2012). Why science is not necessarily self-correcting. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 645–654.
-
Jager, L.R., & Leek, J.T. (2014). An estimate of the science-wise false discovery rate and application to the top medical literature. Biostatistics, 15: 1–12.
-
Jasny, B. R., Chin, G., Chong, L., & Vignieri, S. (2011). Data replication and reproducability. Again, and again, and again. Science, December 2., 334(6060): 1225.
-
John, L. K., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2012). Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychological Science, 23 (5) 524–532.
-
Johnson, J. P. (2011). Cancer researcher fabricated data. The Scientist, 2011. Aug. 11. On line: 2011. August 11. https://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/31028/title/Cancer-Researcher-Fabricated-Data/ Letöltve: 2018.01.24.
-
Johnson, C. S., Smeesters, D., & Wheeler, S. C. (2012). Retraction of Johnson, Smeesters, and Wheeler (2012). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103: 605.
-
Kahnemann, D. (2011). Thinking fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
-
Kennedy, J. E. (2015). Critique of Cumming’s „new statistics” for psychological research: A perspective from outside psychology. Online: http://jeksite.org/psi/critique_new_stat.pdf and http://jeksite.org/psi/critique_new_stat.htm Letöltve: 2017.03.04.
-
Kerr, N. L. (1998). HARKing: Hypothesizing after the results are known. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(3), 196–217.
-
Kimmel, A. J. (1998). In defence of deception. American Psychologist, 53, 803–804.
-
Klein, D. F. (2005). Beyond significance testing: Reforming data analysis methods in behavioral research. American Journal of Psychiatry, 162(3), 643-a.
-
LeBel, E. P., & Peters, K. R. (2011). Fearing the future of empirical psychology: Bem’s (2011) evidence of psi as a case study of deficiencies in modal research practice. Review of General Psychology, 15(4), 371–379.
-
LeBel, E. P., & Paunonen, S. V. (2011). Sexy but often unreliable: The impact of unreliability on the replicability of experimental findings with implicit measures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(4), 570–583.
-
Leek J. , McShane B., Gelman A., Colquhoun D., Nuijten, M. (2017). Five ways to fix statistics: Share analysis plans and results. Nature, 551, 557–559.
-
Lisberger, S. G. (2013). Sound the alarm: Fraud in neuroscience. In Cerebrum: the Dana Forum on Brain Science, (May-June). Dana Foundation. Online: May. 02. http://dana.org/Cerebrum/2013/Sound_the_Alarm__Fraud_in_Neuroscience/Letöltve: 2018.01.24.
-
Lock, S., Wells, F. O. & Farthing M. J. (Eds) (2001). Fraud and misconduct in biomedical research. London: BMJ Books.
-
Lutus, P. (2017). Psychology and neuroscience. Ont he transition from psychology to neuroscience. Arachnoid.com blog, Online: Oct. 18. https://arachnoid.com/psychology_and_neuroscience/ Letöltve: 2018.01.21.
-
Makel, M. C., Plucker, J. A., & Hegarty, B. (2012). Replications in psychology research: How often do they really occur? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 537–542.
-
Marszalek, J. M., Barber, C., Kohlhart, J., & Cooper, B. H. (2011). Sample size in psychological research over the past 30 years. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 112(2), 331–348.
-
Marton J. , Varró A., & Varró V. (2004). Impaktfaktor és tudományos teljesítmény. Magyar Tudomány, 49(12), 1395–1403.
-
McCook, Alison (2017). When a paper retracts 107 papers for fake reviews, it pays a price. Retraction Watch. Online: 2017. August 16. http://retractionwatch.com/2017/08/16/journalretracts-107-papers-fake-reviews-pays-price/#more-51443 Letöltve: 2017.09.20.
-
Meehl, P. E. (1967). Theory-testing in psychology and physics: A methodological paradox. Philosophy of Science, 34(2), 103–115.
-
Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Michigan State University. ’Power poses’ don’t work, eleven new studies suggest. ScienceDaily. Online: 2017 September 11. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/09/170911095932.htm
-
Miller, A. N., Taylor, S. G., & Bedeian, A. G. (2011). Publish or perish: academic life as management faculty live it. Career Development International, 16(5), 422–445.
-
Mitchell, J. (2014). On the evidentiary emptiness of failed replications. Working paper. http://jasonmitchell. fas.harvard.edu/Papers/Mitchell_failed_science_2014.pdf Letöltve: 2018.01.22.
-
Moore, A. (2006). Bad science in the headlines. Who takes responsibility when science is distorted in the mass media? EMBO Reports, 7(12), 1193–1196.
-
Morrison, D. E. & Henkel, R. E. (Eds) (2006). The Significance Test Controversy: A Reader. New Brunswick: Aldine Transaction Publishers.
-
Mullard, A. (2011). Reliability of ’new drug target’ claims called into question Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 10, 643–644
-
Neuroskeptic. (2012). The nine circles of scientific hell. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 643–644.
-
Newcomer, E. P. & Spitzer, E. A. L. (2010). Marc Hauser’s fall from grace. The Harvard Crimson www.thecrimson.com/article/2010/9/14/hauser-lab-research-professor/ Letöltve: 2017. 12.20.
-
Nosek, B. A., & Bar-Anan, Y. (2012). Scientific utopia: I. Opening scientific communication. Psychological Inquiry, 23(3), 217–243.
-
Nosek, B. A., Spies, J. R., & Motyl, M. (2012). Scientific utopia: II. Restructuring incentives and practices to promote truth over publishability. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 615–631.
-
Nosek, B. A., & Lindsay, D. S. (2018). Preregistration becoming the norm in psychological science. APS Observer, 31(30/3). https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/preregistrationbecoming- the-norm-in-psychological-science Letöltve: 2018.12.16.
-
Nuzzo, R. (2014). Scientific method: Statistical errors: P values, the ‘gold standard’of statistical validity, are not as reliable as many scientists assume. Nature, 506, 150–152.
-
O’Grady, C. (2017). New papers were found through investigations into previous fraud. Ars Technica, https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/04/107-cancer-papers-retracted-due-to- peerreview- fraud/ Letöltve: 2017.09.20.
-
Office of University Communications, Univeristy of Nebraska-Lincoln (2014). Scientists find growing consensus: Political attitudes derive from body and mind. Online: 2014.06.31. http://newsroom.unl.edu/releases/2014/07/31/Scientists+find+growing+consensus%3A+Political+attitudes+ derive+from+body+and+mind Letöltve: 2017.09.20.
-
Open Science Collaboration (2012). An open, large-scale, collaborative effort to estimate the reproducibility of psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, (6) 657–660.
-
Open Science Collaboration (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of Psychological Science. Science, 349 (6251), aac4716
-
Palus, Shannon (2015). Diderick Stapel now has 58 retractions. Retraction Watch, 2015.12.08. http://retractionwatch.com/2015/12/08/diederik-stapel-now-has-58-retractions/ Letöltve: 2017.09.20.
-
Papp Z. (2004). A tudományos teljesítmény mérésének problémáiról. Magyar Tudomány, 49(2), 232–240.
-
Pashler, H., & Harris, C. R. (2012). Is the replicability crisis overblown? Three arguments examined. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 531–536.
-
Pashler, H., & Wagenmakers, E. J. (2012). Editors’ introduction to the Special Section on Replicability in Psychological Science: a crisis of confidence? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 528–530.
-
Pautasso, M. (2010). A review of the worsening file drawer problem. Scientometrics, 85, 193–202.
-
Peterson, R. A. (2001). On the Use of College Students in Social Science Research: Insights from a Second-Order Meta-analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 450–461.
-
Popper, K. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery New York, Routledge.
-
Popper, K. (1959/2005). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Routledge.
-
Priem, J. D., Taraborelli, P., Groth, C. Neylon (2010). Altmetrics: A manifesto, 26 October 2010. http://altmetrics.org/manifesto Letöltve: 2018.05.22.
-
Randall, D., & Welser, C. (2018). The irreproducability crisis of modern science. Causes, Consequences, and the Road to Reform, April 2018. Report. National Association of Scholars. Online: https://www.nas.org/images/documents/irreproducibility_report/NAS_irreproducibilityReport.pdf Letöltve: 2018.09.21.
-
Rennie, D. & Gunsalus, C. K. (2001). Regulations on scientific misconduct: Lessons from the US experience. In S. Lock, O. Wells, & M. J. Farthing (Eds) Fraud and misconduct in biomedical research (13–31). London: BMJ Books.
-
Rosenthal, R. (1979). An introduction to the file drawer problem. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 638–641.
-
Rosenthal, R. (1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86(3) 638.
-
Sanna, L. J., Chang, E. C., Miceli, P. M., & Lundberg, K. B. (2011). RETRACTED: Rising up to higher virtues: Experiencing elevated physical height uplifts prosocial actions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(2), 472–476.
-
Sarewitz, D. (2016). The pressure to publish pushes down quality. Nature, 533(7602). Online: 2016. May 11. https://www.nature.com/news/the-pressure-to-publish-pushes-down-quality-1.19887 Letöltve: 2017.09.20.
-
Schimmack, U. (2016). The Replicability-Index: Quantifying Statistical Research Integrity. https://wordpress.com/post/replication-index.wordpress.com/920 Letöltve: 2017. 09.20.
-
Schimmack, U. (2016). A revised introduction to the R-Index. Replicability-Index: Improving the Replicability of Empirical Research. Online: 2016.01.31. https://replicationindex.wordpress.com/2016/01/31/a-revised-introduction-to-the-r-index Letöltve: 2017.09.20.
-
Schimmack, U., Heene, M., & Kesavan, K. (2017). Reconstruction of a train wreck: How priming research went off the rails. Replicability-Index: Improving the Replicability of Empirical Research. Online: 2017 February 2. https://replicationindex.wordpress.com/2017/02/02/reconstruction-of-a-train-wreck-how-priming-research-went-of-the-rails/ Letöltve: 2017. 09.27.
-
Shea, C. (2012). The data vigilante. The Atlantic, Online: 2012 December https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/12/the-data-vigilante/309172/ Letöltve: 2017.09. 20.
-
Simmons, J. P. & Simonsohn, U. (2015). Power Posing: Reassessing The Evidence Behind The Most Popular TED Talk. Blog post Data Colada, Online: 2015.05.08. http://datacolada.org/37 Letöltve: 2017.09.19.
-
Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological science, 22 (11) 1359–1366.
-
Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2018). False-positive citations. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(2), 255–259.
-
Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2018). False-positive citations. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(2), 255–259.
-
Simons, D. J., Holcombe, A. O., & Spellman, B. A. (2014). An introduction to registered replication reports at Perspectives on Psychological Science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9 (5) 552–555.
-
Singal, J. (2015). The Case of the Amazing Gay-Marriage Data: How a graduate student reluctantly uncovered a huge scientific fraud. Science of US. http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/05/how-a-grad-student-uncovered-a-huge-fraud.html Letöltve: 2017.09.20.
-
Singal, J. (2016). Power Posing’ Co-author: ‘I Do Not Believe That ‘Power Pose’ Effects Are Real’ New York Magazine, 2016.09.16. https://www.thecut.com/2016/09/power-poses-co-author-idont-think-power-poses-are-real.html Letöltve: 2017.09.20.
-
Smith, C. T. (2013). PsychDisclosure. org: Grassroots support for reforming reporting standards in psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(4), 424–432.
-
Stapel, D. (2014). Faking science: A true story of academic fraud. Translated by Nicholas J. L. Brown. Online: 2014.12.14. https://errorstatistics.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/fakingscience-20141214.pdf Letöltve: 2017.09.20.
-
Stapel, D. A., & Lindenberg, S. (2011). Coping with chaos: How disordered contexts promote stereotyping and discrimination. Science, 332 (6026) 251–253. RETRACTED
-
Sterling, T. D. (1959). Publication decisions and their possible effects on inferences drawn from tests of significance: Or vice versa. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 54(285), 30–34.
-
Sterling, T. D., Rosenbaum, W. L., & Weinkam, J. J. (1995). Publication decisions revisited: The effect of the outcome of statistical tests on the decision to publish and vice-versa. [Editorial Material]. American Statistician, 49 (1) 108–112.
-
Szokolszky Á. (2018). Ezután mit gondoljunk a stanfordi börtönkísérletről? Mindset, I. rész, online: 2018.11.04. https://mindsetpszichologia.hu/2018/11/04/szokolszky-agnes-ezutanmit-gondoljunk-a-stanfordi-bortonkiserletrol-i-resz/; II. rész, online: 2018.11.09. https://mindsetpszichologia.hu/2018/11/09/szokolszky-agnes-ezutan-mit-gondoljunk-a- stanfordi-bortonkiserletrol-ii-resz/; III. rész, online: 2018.11.11. https://mindsetpszichologia.hu/2018/11/11/szokolszky-agnes-ezutan-mit-gondoljunk-a-stanfordi-bortonkiserletrol-iii-resz/
-
Szűcs, D., & Ioannidis, J. (2017). When null hypothesis significance testing is unsuitable for research: a reassessment. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 11, 390.
-
Tóth J. (2014). Akadémiai függőség és hamisítványok: az impaktfaktor-fetisizmus egy kísérő jelenségéről. BUKSZ, 26 (3) 203–205.
-
Trafimow, D., & Marks, M. (2015). Editorial //On the invalidity of statistical significance testing// Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 37(1–2) 1–2.
-
van der Zee, T. (2017). The Wansink Dossier: An Overview. The Skeptical Scientist blog, Online : 2017.03.21. http://www.timvanderzee.com/the-wansink-dossier-an-overview/ Letöltve: 2018. 01.21.
-
Van Kolfschooten, F. (2014). Fresh misconduct charges hit Dutch social psychology. Science , 344 (6184) 566–567.
-
Vargha A. (2016). Szignifikanciatesztek – negyven éve hibás elemzéseket végzek és téveszméket tanítok? Statisztikai Szemle, 94 (4) 445–451.
-
Vargha, A. (2000). Matematikai statisztikai, nyelvészeti és biológiai alkalmazásokkal: felsőoktatási tankönyv. Budapest: Pólya Kiadó.
-
Vul, E., Harris, C., Winkielman, P., & Pashler, H. (2009). Puzzlingly high correlations in fMRI studies of emotion, personality, and social cognition. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 274–290.
-
Waaijer, C. J., Teelken, C., Wouters, P. F., & van der Weijden, I. C. (2017). Competition in science: links between publication pressure, grant pressure and the academic job market. Higher Education Policy, 1–19.
-
Wagenmakers, E. J., Wetzels, R., Borsboom, D., van der Maas, H. L., & Kievit, R. A. (2012). An agenda for purely confirmatory research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 632–638.
-
Wakefield, A. J., Murch, S. H., Anthony, A., Linnell, J., Casson, D. M., Malik, M., & Valentine, A. (1998). Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. The Lancet, 351 (9103) 637–641. RETRACTED.
-
Weir, K. (2015). A reproducability crisis? American Psychological Association. Monitor on psychology, 46(9). Online: http://www.apa.org/monitor/2015/10/share-reproducibility.aspx Letöltve: 2017.09.20.
-
Wesel, M. van (2016). Evaluation by citation: Trends in ublication behavior, evaluation criteria, and the strive for high impact publications. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22 (1) 199–225.
-
Yong, E. (2012a). Replication studies: Bad copy. Nature, News, 485(7398) Online: 2012 May 16. https://www.nature.com/news/replication-studies-bad-copy-1.10634 Letöltve: 2018.01.20.
-
Yong, E. (2012b). Uncertainty shrouds psychologist’s resignation. Nature, News. Online: 2012 July 12. https://www.nature.com/news/uncertainty-shrouds-psychologist-s-resignation-1.10968 Letöltve: 2017.09.20.
-
Yong, E. (2012c). Nobel laureate challenges psychologists to clean up their act. Nature, News, 485(7398) Online: 212 May 16. https://www.nature.com/news/replication-studies-bad-copy-1.10634 Letöltve: 2018.01.20.
-
Ziliak, S. T., & McCloskey, D. N. (2008). The cult of statistical significance. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
-
Zittoun, T., Gillespie, A., & Cornish, F. (2009). Fragmentation or differentiation: questioning the crisis in psychology. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 43 (2) 104–115.
Magyar Pszichológiai Szemle
ELTE PPK Pszichológiai Intézet
Address: H-1064 Budapest, Izabella u. 46.
E-mail: pszichoszemle@gmail.com
Indexing and Abstracting Services:
- PsycINFO
- Scopus
- CABELLS Journalytics
| 2022 | |
|---|---|
| Web of Science | |
| Total Cites WoS |
not indexed |
| Journal Impact Factor | not indexed |
| Rank by Impact Factor |
not indexed |
| Impact Factor without Journal Self Cites |
not indexed |
| 5 Year Impact Factor |
not indexed |
| Journal Citation Indicator | not indexed |
| Rank by Journal Citation Indicator |
not indexed |
| Scimago | |
| Scimago H-index |
8 |
| Scimago Journal Rank |
0.127 |
| Scimago Quartile Score |
Psychology (miscellaneous) (Q4) |
| Scopus | |
| Scopus Cite Score |
0,3 |
| Scopus CIte Score Rank |
General Psychology 199/209 (5th PCTL) |
| Scopus SNIP |
0.124 |
| 2021 | |
|---|---|
| Web of Science | |
| Total Cites WoS |
not indexed |
| Journal Impact Factor | not indexed |
| Rank by Impact Factor | not indexed |
| Impact Factor without Journal Self Cites |
not indexed |
| 5 Year Impact Factor |
not indexed |
| Journal Citation Indicator | not indexed |
| Rank by Journal Citation Indicator | not indexed |
| Scimago | |
| Scimago H-index |
8 |
| Scimago Journal Rank |
0,117 |
| Scimago Quartile Score | Psychology (miscellaneous) (Q4) |
| Scopus | |
| Scopus Cite Score |
0,3 |
| Scopus CIte Score Rank |
General Psychology 200/209 (Q4) |
| Scopus SNIP |
0,366 |
| 2020 | |
|---|---|
| Scimago H-index |
7 |
| Scimago Journal Rank |
0,142 |
| Scimago Quartile Score |
Psychology (miscellaneous) Q4 |
| Scopus Cite Score |
17/111=0,2 |
| Scopus Cite Score Rank |
General Psychology 199/203 (Q4) |
| Scopus SNIP |
0,079 |
| Scopus Cites |
53 |
| Scopus Documents |
24 |
| Days from submission to acceptance | 116 |
| Days from acceptance to publication | 225 |
| Acceptance Rate |
81% |
| 2019 | |
|---|---|
| Scimago H-index |
6 |
| Scimago Journal Rank |
0,139 |
| Scimago Quartile Score |
Psychology (miscellaneous) Q4 |
| Scopus Cite Score |
24/103=0,2 |
| Scopus Cite Score Rank |
General Psychology 192/204 (Q4) |
| Scopus SNIP |
0,113 |
| Scopus Cites |
35 |
| Scopus Documents |
14 |
| Acceptance Rate |
58% |
| Magyar Pszichológiai Szemle | |
|---|---|
| Publication Model | Hybrid |
| Submission Fee | none |
| Article Processing Charge | 900 EUR/article |
| Printed Color Illustrations | 40 EUR (or 10 000 HUF) + VAT / piece |
| Regional discounts on country of the funding agency | World Bank Lower-middle-income economies: 50% World Bank Low-income economies: 100% |
| Further Discounts | Editorial Board / Advisory Board members: 50% Corresponding authors, affiliated to an EISZ member institution subscribing to the journal package of Akadémiai Kiadó: 100% |
| Subscription fee 2023 | Online subsscription: 164 EUR / 220 USD Print + online subscription: 196 EUR / 250 USD |
| Subscription Information | Online subscribers are entitled access to all back issues published by Akadémiai Kiadó for each title for the duration of the subscription, as well as Online First content for the subscribed content. |
| Purchase per Title | Individual articles are sold on the displayed price. |
| Magyar Pszichológiai Szemle | |
|---|---|
| Language | Hungarian |
| Size | B5 |
| Year of Foundation |
1928 |
| Volumes per Year |
1 |
| Issues per Year |
4 |
| Founder | Magyar Pszichológiai Társaság |
| Founder's Address |
H-1075 Budapest, Hungary Kazinczy u. 23-27. I/116. |
| Publisher | Akadémiai Kiadó |
| Publisher's Address |
H-1117 Budapest, Hungary 1516 Budapest, PO Box 245. |
| Responsible Publisher |
Chief Executive Officer, Akadémiai Kiadó |
| ISSN | 0025-0279 (Print) |
| ISSN | 1588-2799 (Online) |
Monthly Content Usage
| Abstract Views | Full Text Views | PDF Downloads | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 2023 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Jul 2023 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| Aug 2023 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 9 | 11 | 14 |
| Oct 2023 | 5 | 8 | 0 |
| Nov 2023 | 4 | 2 | 0 |
| Dec 2023 | 6 | 0 | 0 |
Author:
Author:
Authors:
, , , , , and
Copyright Akadémiai Kiadó AKJournals is the trademark of Akadémiai Kiadó's journal publishing business branch.
Powered by PubFactory