Citing unpublished data?

[futureapppsy2]

I’ve noticed a trend towards certain researchers/researcher groups citing “unpublished analyses” in manuscripts to back up their claims in the intro and discussion sections, and it strikes me as sketchy, because there’s no way of seeing those numbers for yourself.

Thoughts?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I'm no career researcher, but that does seem a bit iffy, particularly if it's being done to support crucial arguments or conclusions.

 

[PsyDr]

The entire point of peer review is to ensure no one is just making stuff up, or using bad logic, or whatever. Refusing to show the basis doesn't seem to be consistent with the theory of science.

 

[Sanman]

The entire point of peer review is to ensure no one is just making stuff up, or using bad logic, or whatever. Refusing to show the basis doesn't seem to be consistent with the theory of science.

Yeah, but it is so much easier to get published when you make stuff up.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I’ve seen it. I don’t like it, but it happens.

 

[WisNeuro]

Not generally a fan. It needs to be used sparingly, and a point being made should never hinge on it. Generally when it works okayish is if an established researcher in an area gives leave to discuss some findings that are currently in the publishing process. But, I would avoid unless necessary.

 

[Ollie123]

Guess it depends on context. Used sparingly and about minor points, not a big deal. Doubly so if it is an established group I know does good work and its relatively obvious this is data that is pending and they will be publishing soon, or if it is obvious why it was not published (i.e. someone citing their own unpublished negative findings for three other similar drugs that didnt work). Tons of stuff never sees the light of day and its tough to know the reason. I would not be surprised if this was getting worse in the era of big data where most of us collect wayyyyy more data than we could even dream to publish.

That said, all of this is said from the perspective of someone who generally thinks the intro and discussion are mostly irrelevant to good papers anyways. Obviously all this changes if it is a central argument or situation where it would seem critical to see the data.