Perspectives on psych science issues and concerns

[Justanothergrad]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Some you may have seen this, but there are substantial concerns with the ethics and contribution offered by a recent PoPS issue. A letter has been drafted which outlines some major concerns and is gathering signatures before being sent to the publication committee at APS. These concerns stem from a wide swath of academics and I wanted to share it.

https://ucdavis.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_81VSO2RxuUnAnoF

 

[Grenth]

Is there anywhere I can read up on this more? I read the letter attached to survey and the March issue of PoPs and I'm inclined to agree with the letter author's methodological and ethical concerns about PoPs and Sternberg. However, I would like to hear what folks are saying is a better alternative to citation count methods and also what should be done when an editor is showing bias towards his own work.

As as student it's always discouraging to see all the problems the field has even (perhaps especially) at the highest levels. I'm using one of Sternberg's measures for my dissertation and while doing my review of it I found an autobiographical paper he wrote about himself that was so arrogant. I summed it up to my labmate as "author explains how golly gee smart and lucky he was to be super successful at everything he tried even when he wasn't even interested in the concept". Of course he is smart and talented and has contributed to the field more than I could dream of doing so it's even more of a bummer that he feels the need to puff himself up in his own journal.

 

[futureapppsy2]

This is excessive, but honestly, I don’t think self-citation is that much of an ethical issue. People tend to build on their previous work, so self-citation in many cases makes sense.

 

[Justanothergrad]

This is excessive, but honestly, I don’t think self-citation is that much of an ethical issue. People tend to build on their previous work, so self-citation in many cases makes sense.

I tend to agree that self-citation alone isn't the worst thing (within reason- clearly this percentage is not within anything close to reason) and I wouldn't have as much of an issue with it if the editor responsible for inviting authors to contribute to a prestigious journal wasn't using this as a mechanism to inflate his own prestige. It undercuts the entire premise of peer review and, to me, unquestionably has issues which demonstrate dual-roles which compromise ethical research practice.

 

[Justanothergrad]

Prominent psychologist resigns as journal editor over allegations over self-citation

 

[PsyDr]

Accepted or common in other fields? Then everyone shut up about it.

Why does this field try to make stuff harder on itself?

 

[psych.meout]

Accepted or common in other fields? Then everyone shut up about it.

Why does this field try to make stuff harder on itself?

Why do we make anything harder on ourselves? Why is it our responsibility when patients have poor outcomes, relapse, etc? Why do we often consider it a failing to refer patients out to other providers instead of treating them ourselves?

Physicians sure as hell don't do this.

 

[WisNeuro]

Physicians sure as hell don't do this.

Oh, they do as well. Given my marriage situation, I'm around MDs socially just as much as PhDs. There are more similarities when it comes to attitudes in patient care than you'd think.

 

[Justanothergrad]

Accepted or common in other fields? Then everyone shut up about it.

Why does this field try to make stuff harder on itself?

I'm not sure some of the flagrant plagiarism would be acceptable in any field. If they do it to this extent (see Exhibit 1 in the link below), that is still an issue.

Nick Brown's blog: Some instances of apparent duplicate publication by Dr. Robert J. Sternberg

 

[PsyDr]

I'm not sure some of the flagrant plagiarism would be acceptable in any field. If they do it to this extent (see Exhibit 1 in the link below), that is still an issue.

Nick Brown's blog: Some instances of apparent duplicate publication by Dr. Robert J. Sternberg

1) There is a significant difference between self citation and plagiarism. If the field is concerned about the concept of self citation, I stand by my opinion.
2) If we are talking about the actions of a single person instead, I am happy to give my opinion about that. Anyone who is a PI knows that the failure to disclose conflicts of interest is a federal crime in any field.
3)Explain how self- plagiarism works, using the standard definition of plagiarism.

 

[Justanothergrad]

1) There is a significant difference between self citation and plagiarism. If the field is concerned about the concept of self citation, I stand by my opinion.
2) If we are talking about the actions of a single person instead, I am happy to give my opinion about that. Anyone who is a PI knows that the failure to disclose conflicts of interest is a federal crime in any field.
3)Explain how self- plagiarism works, using the standard definition of plagiarism.

I agree in general with your thoughts with some exception. His behavior demonstrates problematic behavior.
1. self-citation isn't a problem until it excludes a representative sampling of the research (e.g., 70% self-citation rates per Sternberg articles) and has no means of peer review requiring correction (editors using their role in the peer review process to approve their own work or pushing citations of their own theories onto others when it doesn't fit)

2. I don't think you can define it in the traditional sense, but in a field that judges success based on the degree to which "you contribute original thought" it becomes problematic when you continue to contribute the same original thought numerous times. It's also a problem when copywritten material is used and submitted as copywritten material to another source (competing encyclopedias by different publishers, for instance) since you no longer 'own' said copied material.

3. Taking issue with "self-plagarism" is beyond stupid in cases of things like 'you copied your own dissertation'.

 

[PsyDr]

I agree in general with your thoughts with some exception. His behavior demonstrates problematic behavior.
1. self-citation isn't a problem until it excludes a representative sampling of the research (e.g., 70% self-citation rates per Sternberg articles) and has no means of peer review requiring correction (editors using their role in the peer review process to approve their own work or pushing citations of their own theories onto others when it doesn't fit)

2. I don't think you can define it in the traditional sense, but in a field that judges success based on the degree to which "you contribute original thought" it becomes problematic when you continue to contribute the same original thought numerous times. It's also a problem when copywritten material is used and submitted as copywritten material to another source (competing encyclopedias by different publishers, for instance) since you no longer 'own' said copied material.

3. Taking issue with "self-plagarism" is beyond stupid in cases of things like 'you copied your own dissertation'.

I think we have a similar idea. I am just addressing the concept mentioned, not the individual's overall behavior. I have zero issue with self citation. I do not think it is possible to plagiarize one's self using the definition of the word plagiarism.

HOWEVER

1) If I submitted to a journal and cited myself 80 times, the peer review process would result in me getting a "don't be an idiot" letter. This should have happened here. Therefore, it is not an issue with self citation. It is an issue with unrestricted and undeclared conflicts of interest. None of this would be a problem if things were put in place to avoid conflicts of interest (e.g., publishing in the journal where you decide who gets published). There are literal laws about this stuff. And I imagine some institutions are in big big big trouble.
2) Again, unless there is some weird definition of plagiarism with which I am unfamiliar, it is impossible to plagiarize one's self. Resubmitting your own work to get those citation numbers up is an issue of unrestricted conflicts of interest.

 

[Justanothergrad]

Don't know if you guys saw this- scroll down the letter from Sternbergs lawyer. Kinda weird, especially following APS statement that sternberg resigned before the board could even talk about the letter.

The 20% Statistician: Prestige and Punishment: Preventing Norm Violations in Science