Search

Your search keyword '"Psychological and Psychosocial Issues"' showing total 2 results
Start Over Descriptor "Psychological and Psychosocial Issues" Journal plos biology
2 results on '"Psychological and Psychosocial Issues"'

1. Scientists’ Reputations Are Based on Getting It Right, Not Being Right.

Author

Ebersole, Charles R., Axt, Jordan R., and Nosek, Brian A.

Subjects
*SCIENTISTS, *SOCIAL psychology, *REPUTATION, *EVALUATION methodology, *REPLICATION (Experimental design)
Abstract

Replication is vital for increasing precision and accuracy of scientific claims. However, when replications “succeed” or “fail,” they could have reputational consequences for the claim’s originators. Surveys of United States adults (N = 4,786), undergraduates (N = 428), and researchers (N = 313) showed that reputational assessments of scientists were based more on how they pursue knowledge and respond to replication evidence, not whether the initial results were true. When comparing one scientist that produced boring but certain results with another that produced exciting but uncertain results, opinion favored the former despite researchers’ belief in more rewards for the latter. Considering idealized views of scientific practices offers an opportunity to address incentives to reward both innovation and verification. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2016
Full Text
View/download PDF

2. Scientists’ Reputations Are Based on Getting It Right, Not Being Right

Author

Charles R. Ebersole, Jordan Axt, and Brian A. Nosek

Subjects
Open science, Social Sciences, 050109 social psychology, Surveys, Public opinion, Medicine and Health Sciences, Psychology, Biology (General), media_common, General Neuroscience, 05 social sciences, Research Assessment, Public relations, Research Personnel, Reproducibility, Professions, Incentive, Research Design, Perspective, Publication ethics, Educational Status, General Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Reputation, Psychometrics, QH301-705.5, Science, media_common.quotation_subject, Replication Studies, Biology, Research and Analysis Methods, 050105 experimental psychology, General Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, Inventions, Reward, Humans, 0501 psychology and cognitive sciences, Motivation, Behavior, Psychological and Psychosocial Issues, Survey Research, General Immunology and Microbiology, business.industry, Knowledge level, Reproducibility of Results, Biology and Life Sciences, United States, Replication (computing), Health Care, Public Opinion, People and Places, Scientists, Population Groupings, business, Undergraduates
Abstract

Replication is vital for increasing precision and accuracy of scientific claims. However, when replications “succeed” or “fail,” they could have reputational consequences for the claim’s originators. Surveys of United States adults (N = 4,786), undergraduates (N = 428), and researchers (N = 313) showed that reputational assessments of scientists were based more on how they pursue knowledge and respond to replication evidence, not whether the initial results were true. When comparing one scientist that produced boring but certain results with another that produced exciting but uncertain results, opinion favored the former despite researchers’ belief in more rewards for the latter. Considering idealized views of scientific practices offers an opportunity to address incentives to reward both innovation and verification., How are scientists evaluated? Members of the general public, undergraduate students, and active researchers all agree that the research process, not the results, determines a scientist’s reputation.

Published
2016

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results