How can someone with this type of research get published??

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
AestheticGod

AestheticGod

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2011
Messages
598
Reaction score
9
Members don't see this ad.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0053285


They took 40 photographs of male faces and surveyed 200+ girls asking them which male they thought was more trustworthy (brown eyes won).

They actually got this thing published?...

EDIT:
BRB Gonna go ask 300 students what their favorite color is. And I'm going to hypothesis that all the males will say red and all females will say either blue or green. And that testosterone in males is the reason why they like red more.
 
Last edited:
LizzyM said:
Hypothesis driven research is all good.
Click to expand...

So this type of research is accepted ?
hmm, didn't really expect it to be good enough since the whole thing can be finished in a month or so.
 
AestheticGod said:
So this type of research is accepted ?
hmm, didn't really expect it to be good enough since the whole thing can be finished in a month or so.
Click to expand...

I bet it took more than a month to get through the IRB (approval of use of human subjects). And it may have taken a month to round up that bibligraphy.
 
AestheticGod said:
So this type of research is accepted ?
hmm, didn't really expect it to be good enough since the whole thing can be finished in a month or so.
Click to expand...

Have you been living in a bubble for the last 20 years?
 
Plos one is a very bad research journal. That is the reason.
 
I've seen four shows about this..they also did this with smell. Can't believe those men were on board with that
 
Not even that bad. I've read an article about prostitution pricing insensitivity published in an economics journal.
 
MelissaThompson said:
Plos one is a very bad research journal. That is the reason.
Click to expand...

MelissaThompson is... correct.


"All submissions go through an internal and external pre-publication peer review but are not excluded on the basis of lack of perceived importance or adherence to a scientific field."

:laugh:


idk tho, it also says some nobel laureates published in it
 
Psychology --> it's a soft science. Seems like actual research (though not in a hard science field).
 
cheechootrain said:
I've seen four shows about this..they also did this with smell. Can't believe those men were on board with that
Click to expand...

Evolutionary Psychology is actually really interesting, the fact that an unconscious factor in mate selection is immunological is quite interesting.

That being said, Psychology research in my opinion is a lot harder than Biological research.
 
AestheticGod said:
So this type of research is accepted ?
hmm, didn't really expect it to be good enough since the whole thing can be finished in a month or so.
Click to expand...

The Zimbardo's electric shock study was done in under a month and barely required anything. Human psychology is a broad field, there's a lot that we don't know about anything. It's tough to even devise a hypothesis that is testable and also ethically applicable.
 
Doudline said:
boom, touché, Doudline is now imitating the Titanic.
























no, but seriously?
Click to expand...


Well my definition of "hard" isn't "omg dude this **** is hard"... my definition is about the scientist who is studying that field being able to take exact, concise measurements. I mean you can't say that psychological research can produced with as much certainty as physics research can you.
 
Venom5 said:
Well my definition of "hard" isn't "omg dude this **** is hard"... my definition is about the scientist who is studying that field being able to take exact, concise measurements. I mean you can't say that psychological research can produced with as much certainty as physics research can you.
Click to expand...

I'd actually beg to say that the kind of research in the OP has as much empirical roots as most of physics, and sometimes even surpasses many aspects of it. How you goin' to prove ya theory about worm holes or time travel, baby boy?
 
Doudline said:
I'd actually beg to say that the kind of research in the OP has as much empirical roots as most of physics, and sometimes even surpasses many aspects of it. How you goin' to prove ya theory about worm holes or time travel, baby boy?
Click to expand...

That's not even close to psychology. Good luck laughing in Stephen Hawking's face and calling him a softie scientist :laugh:
 
Doudline said:
I'd actually beg to say that the kind of research in the OP has as much empirical roots as most of physics, and sometimes even surpasses many aspects of it. How you goin' to prove ya theory about worm holes or time travel, baby boy?
Click to expand...

11rx7vc.jpg



But are those actually theories cuz?

And you can't say that in general psyc can produce more concrete data than physics.

Math will beat psychology for exactness any day of the year.
 
MelissaThompson said:
Plos one is a very bad research journal. That is the reason.
Click to expand...

Venom5 said:
MelissaThompson is... correct.

"All submissions go through an internal and external pre-publication peer review but are not excluded on the basis of lack of perceived importance or adherence to a scientific field."

:laugh:

idk tho, it also says some nobel laureates published in it
Click to expand...
That's pretty ignorant to say. Do you even work in research? PLoS-One might not be considered a top journal, but it's definitely not considered a "very bad" one. It is somewhere around the middle. The problem that PLoS-One has is that the criteria for being published is that your methods are consistent and your conclusions are supported, which means that they don't judge your research by its importance in the field like Science and other major journals do. Just because a contribution might not revolutionize your field doesn't mean it doesn't add to it. Adherence to a scientific field only means it can come from bio, chem, physics or any discipline.
 
Venom5 said:
11rx7vc.jpg



But are those actually theories cuz?

And you can't say that in general psyc can produce more concrete data than physics.

Math will beat psychology for exactness any day of the year.
Click to expand...

I shall incline myself before your rock-solid arguments!

(Also math ain't no science you know that hun)
 
mcloaf said:
Based on what?
Click to expand...

You're pulled between multiple forces. 1) you want to make sure your hypothesis is testable. 2) If it is testable then you need to make sure it's ethical. 3) If it is ethical you need to structure your experiment to be ethical, i.e you're not allowed to lie to participants and you don't want them to figure out what your study is studying and thus expect that in advance and then choose that answer. 4) Going out and then selecting your participant, conducting double blind experiments ( with internal reliablity and consistency i.e doing a behavioral analysis, doing surveys, doing Bioanalysis like EKG or Fmri, doing open question v.s doing closed question interviews), making sure to account for everything under the sun i.e IQ, culture, etc. 5) Coding multiple layers.
Oh, and lets say you want to study something new? Well you then need to spend a year doing qualitative research to create a baseline. Then you need to use alternative forms of statistics for your future studies on top of conventional statistics because you have no data for your mean population.

I'm sorry but this is a lot harder than taking a Sino Atrial Achetylcholine neuron doing a perfuse clamp, monitoring physiological signals through 5 measures ( i.e Action potential size, frequency, etc) and injecting it with a substance and watching the changes and then saying that given these things this might have implications for reducing cardiac disorders like tachycardia.

Personally psychological research is hard. It's a reason why I choose to stay away from clinical psychology.
 
TriagePreMed said:
That's pretty ignorant to say. Do you even work in research? PLoS-One might not be considered a top journal, but it's definitely not considered a "very bad" one. It is somewhere around the middle. The problem that PLoS-One has is that the criteria for being published is that your methods are consistent and your conclusions are supported, which means that they don't judge your research by its importance in the field like Science and other major journals do. Just because a contribution might not revolutionize your field doesn't mean it doesn't add to it. Adherence to a scientific field only means it can come from bio, chem, physics or any discipline.
Click to expand...

That was what the "idk tho" was for.

I actually did look up the IF before i posted that, its around 4. Is that terrible? No terrible is around 2 (lol im looking at you Current Genetics). Does it technically add to the scientific data bank? Yes. But seriously man look at the study that was published in that magazine. You will never see something like that in a quality journal.

And yes i do work in research thank you very much. First time I have heard of PLoS, as I usually only deal with Nature, Science, and JBC (that was a joke)
 
tpsreport said:
That's not even close to psychology. Good luck laughing in Stephen Hawking's face and calling him a softie scientist :laugh:
Click to expand...

Both share parallels in that they are theoretical fields. Astrophysics and quantum physics both have flaws, I mean lets not forget that 30 years ago we thought Venus had Jungles on it.
 
Doudline said:
How you goin' to prove ya theory about worm holes or time travel, baby boy?
Click to expand...

You do realize that relativistic time dilation has been experimentally proven, and that the clocks in orbiting GPS satellites need to be corrected for periodically because they are continuously time traveling into the future...
 
ToldYouSo said:
You do realize that relativistic time dilation has been experimentally proven, and that the clocks in orbiting GPS satellites need to be corrected for periodically because they are continuously time traveling into the future...
Click to expand...

Strong username to content ratio
 
ToldYouSo said:
You do realize that relativistic time dilation has been experimentally proven, and that the clocks in orbiting GPS satellites need to be corrected for periodically because they are continuously time traveling into the future...
Click to expand...

I really don't get where you're coming from with this...

Time dilatation =/= Time travel

I'm talking about closed timelike curves and all that bejeezusness.
 
serenade said:
You're pulled between multiple forces. 1) you want to make sure your hypothesis is testable. 2) If it is testable then you need to make sure it's ethical. 3) If it is ethical you need to structure your experiment to be ethical, i.e you're not allowed to lie to participants and you don't want them to figure out what your study is studying and thus expect that in advance and then choose that answer. 4) Going out and then selecting your participant, conducting double blind experiments ( with internal reliablity and consistency i.e doing a behavioral analysis, doing surveys, doing Bioanalysis like EKG or Fmri, doing open question v.s doing closed question interviews), making sure to account for everything under the sun i.e IQ, culture, etc. 5) Coding multiple layers.
Oh, and lets say you want to study something new? Well you then need to spend a year doing qualitative research to create a baseline. Then you need to use alternative forms of statistics for your future studies on top of conventional statistics because you have no data for your mean population.

I'm sorry but this is a lot harder than taking a Sino Atrial Achetylcholine neuron doing a perfuse clamp, monitoring physiological signals through 5 measures ( i.e Action potential size, frequency, etc) and injecting it with a substance and watching the changes and then saying that given these things this might have implications for reducing cardiac disorders like tachycardia.

Personally psychological research is hard. It's a reason why I choose to stay away from clinical psychology.
Click to expand...

All you've done here is come up with two hypothetical situations and made the bio one sound easier than the psych one.

I have no beef with psychology and think it's an interesting field with much to be explored, but considering the breadth of each field (and other factors like how you define difficulty) it strikes me as laughably reductionist to say that one is invariably "harder" than the other.
 
mcloaf said:
All you've done here is come up with two hypothetical situations and made the bio one sound easier than the psych one.

I have no beef with psychology and think it's an interesting field with much to be explored, but considering the breadth of each field (and other factors like how you define difficulty) it strikes me as laughably reductionist to say that one is invariably "harder" than the other.
Click to expand...

I've come up with one from my personally life. I'm not saying either is easy, but generally we know a lot more about biology, it allows you to easily access the previous literature and come up with experiments for the future. In psychology you face both a significant deficit in literature, significant barriers in setting it up, and then significant barriers in coming up with accurate scales to measure things properly. I mean when was the last time someone needed to spend time to figure out a reliable measure of a physiological characteristic? Psychologists spend years trying to make sure even the simplest scales and measures are good enough to use.
You can call it reductionist. But personally as one who knows both sides, I think good psych research is really difficult to do. I personally would rather do electrophysiology any day over behavioral analysis.
 
This guy.
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaO69CF5mbY[/YOUTUBE]
 
serenade said:
You're pulled between multiple forces. 1) you want to make sure your hypothesis is testable. 2) If it is testable then you need to make sure it's ethical. 3) If it is ethical you need to structure your experiment to be ethical, i.e you're not allowed to lie to participants and you don't want them to figure out what your study is studying and thus expect that in advance and then choose that answer. 4) Going out and then selecting your participant, conducting double blind experiments ( with internal reliablity and consistency i.e doing a behavioral analysis, doing surveys, doing Bioanalysis like EKG or Fmri, doing open question v.s doing closed question interviews), making sure to account for everything under the sun i.e IQ, culture, etc. 5) Coding multiple layers.
Oh, and lets say you want to study something new? Well you then need to spend a year doing qualitative research to create a baseline. Then you need to use alternative forms of statistics for your future studies on top of conventional statistics because you have no data for your mean population.
Click to expand...

👍
I think the process of research is what matter; maybe because it resembles the diagnostic process. Now, behavioral analysis is difficult and/or is seemed as inexact because people's behaviors doesn't occur in a bubble or under any controlled environment and this it is difficult to isolate and measure variables. Like serenade said, you have to take into account many things that are closely intertwined and this process is difficult.
 
Venom5 said:
physics = math = physics = math
Click to expand...

I always felt that the sciences kind of build into each other, like math into physics, physics into chemistry, chemistry into biology, and everything into medicine.
 
this thread made me lol.
 
Doudline said:
Not sure if troll or troll.
Click to expand...

I have no clue what happened to this thread after this dude called me a troll. Psych is considered one of the soft sciences; Google it if you don't believe me.
 
Stumpyman said:
I have no clue what happened to this thread after this dude called me a troll. Psych is considered one of the soft sciences; Google it if you don't believe me.
Click to expand...

A troll is claiming that you're troll and trolling everyone...


INCEPTION!!
 
Stumpyman said:
I have no clue what happened to this thread after this dude called me a troll. Psych is considered one of the soft sciences; Google it if you don't believe me.
Click to expand...

Social science is the proper term. Similarly to how Biology is a Life Science as oppose to Physics or Chemistry which are Physical Sciences.

To claim it's a soft science is debatable.
 
serenade said:
Social science is the proper term. Similarly to how Biology is a Life Science as oppose to Physics or Chemistry which are Physical Sciences.

To claim it's a soft science is debatable.
Click to expand...

I thought the social sciences were a subdivision of soft sciences. Like, all social sciences are soft sciences, but not all soft sciences are social sciences.
 
MedPR said:
I thought the social sciences were a subdivision of soft sciences. Like, all social sciences are soft sciences, but not all soft sciences are social sciences.
Click to expand...

Eh maybe, I personally have never seen psych called a soft science or the word soft science used. That being said, psychology is a broad field including neuroscience ( neuroscience started as a psychology field and in my opinion it still is) and Biopsychology.
But generally a social science pretty much just means you study behavior. You're free to use what ever apparatus is preferable to you and plenty are good.
 
MelissaThompson said:
Plos one is a very bad research journal. That is the reason.
Click to expand...
I dont think PLOS one is that bad a journal it has some good articles and an impressive impact factor

I have seen a significant number of articles come out in infectious disease that were thought you be of no significance that later were extremely important so maybe reviewing if science is sound is a good model instead of deciding something is too outside the box

N.B. not referring to this article in specific but in general PLOS one
 
magicm said:
I dont think PLOS one is that bad a journal it has some good articles and an impressive impact factor

I have seen a significant number of articles come out in infectious disease that were thought you be of no significance that later were extremely important so maybe reviewing if science is sound is a good model instead of deciding something is too outside the box

N.B. not referring to this article in specific but in general PLOS one
Click to expand...

Creating a background network of research literature is a good thing. No bit of knowledge if not implicit, useful to be cataloged for future researchers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

F
Does the type of research I do matter?
Replies
10
Views
681
2026PreMed
2026PreMed
FutureDOCTORR123456789
how many hours in research should I get
Replies
1
Views
302
CheeesyBoi
CheeesyBoi
KindaNeurotic
  • Question Question
Abstract Published in Journal Supplement Without My Name
Replies
0
Views
356
KindaNeurotic
KindaNeurotic
M
How many applicants have type 1 diabetes?
Replies
7
Views
535
Mr.Smile12
Mr.Smile12
2026PreMed
Can someone quantify what "rewarding reinvention actually means" ?
Replies
9
Views
568
Goro
Goro
Top