Phoenix Rising supports the Millions Missing global day of protest
Phoenix Rising is delighted to support the demands being made in the ME/CFS community’s first-ever global day of protest …
Discuss the article on the Forums.

"How peer reviewers might hold the key to making science more transparent" - Guardian

Discussion in 'Other Health News and Research' started by sarah darwins, Jan 16, 2016.

  1. sarah darwins

    sarah darwins I told you I was ill

    Messages:
    2,469
    Likes:
    10,485
    Cornwall, UK
    This article (published Friday 16th Jan 2016) has a general focus on questions of transparency and data sharing in science, and touches on issues of interest to us:

    Link to full article: http://www.theguardian.com/science/...ld-the-key-to-making-science-more-transparent

    The author is Pete Etchells — "the Guardian's science blog network coordinator". He has coauthored a paper suggesting a new approach:

    Only a dozen or so comments, all apparently from people working in research and nearly all against the proposal. I was struck by this phrase in one comment — "And once again I see Chambers and Etchells seeing all scientific endeavours as though they are flaky psychology projects which isn't so." Do most scientists still see psychology as flaky non-science? In which case, why aren't they more vocal about it? Isn't it harming their reputations, too?
     
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2016
    MeSci, Bob, ahmo and 5 others like this.
  2. Sasha

    Sasha Fine, thank you

    Messages:
    12,789
    Likes:
    34,217
    UK
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2016
    ahmo, Esther12, Valentijn and 3 others like this.
  3. Jonathan Edwards

    Jonathan Edwards "Gibberish"

    Messages:
    5,247
    Likes:
    31,974
    I think most scientists do see clinical psychology as flaky. I don't really get a feel for what this author is trying to tackle. There is an increasing problem with people not showing raw data and using things like box plots and I agree that should be reversed. But the main effect for me is to assume studies that do not show raw data are probably not very good so I put less weight on them. I guess the point is that in psychological studies it becomes an awful lot more important - as we all know.
     
    sarah darwins likes this.
  4. Sasha

    Sasha Fine, thank you

    Messages:
    12,789
    Likes:
    34,217
    UK
    I don't follow you - why is it more important in psychological studies? Surely it's important in any study that matters (including pharmacology studies in medical trials)?

    Although you might (reasonably) assume that studies that don't show raw data are possibly weak, those aren't the sort of considerations that go into systematic reviews, which influence NICE guidelines. I suspect that most clinicians (GPs, at least) are probably not going to look at individual studies, and will never be aware of which don't share their data and should therefore be trusted less.
     
    MeSci and worldbackwards like this.
  5. sarah darwins

    sarah darwins I told you I was ill

    Messages:
    2,469
    Likes:
    10,485
    Cornwall, UK
    I would think releasing data is even more important for psych studies because of the pitifully low replicability. You can’t even try to replicate a lot of psych studies without access to the exact same materials used by the authors. Whereas if, say, a biochemist claims that certain tissue cells die in vitro when exposed to substance X, any half-competent biochemist can put together an experiment to test that claim without much more information than that. Claims by psychologists tend to be awfully hard to verify or disprove. As we know (understatement).
     
    Valentijn, worldbackwards and adreno like this.
  6. Bob

    Bob

    Messages:
    9,844
    Likes:
    33,947
    England (south coast)
    James Coyne signed up to the PRO initiative...

    And this week he posted this related blog:
    What reviewers can do to improve the trustworthiness of the psychotherapy literature.
    http://forums.phoenixrising.me/inde...worthiness-of-psychotherapy-literature.42461/
     
  7. worldbackwards

    worldbackwards A unique snowflake

    Messages:
    2,091
    Likes:
    10,358
    Earth
    I believe that this comment is the final word on data sharing:
    [​IMG]
     
    sarah darwins likes this.
  8. adreno

    adreno PR activist

    Messages:
    4,841
    Likes:
    11,024
    Well, data can cost a fortune to collect. Imaging data is notoriously difficult and expensive to aquire. It's not like filling out a questionnaire. I suppose this is a problem, especially when institutions are competing. I can see why he is reluctant to share it.
     
    sarah darwins likes this.

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page