| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Psychology - Theory Forum » rhetorical question on how scientists review a field
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| Lawson English |
 Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 8:43 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
I'm not going to mention names, but I ran across an article by several
well-known scientists that will appear in an upcoming book on the subject.
They've published one, two, or zero studies on the topic of their
article, which is to appear in an as-yet unpublished handbook published
by a publishing house named for one of the most prestigious and famous
universities on the planet as "An authoritative desk reference , which
will also be suitable as an advanced textbook."
In their article, they say they will only bother to review EEG studies
that appear in "top tier" journals and/or use long-term subjects and
then proceed to ignore all such studies that don't support their premise.
In their review of one sub-topic, they mention 5 or 6 studies from 1976
to 1980, one study from 2004, which they dismiss as "unsupported," and
ignore about 150 peer-reviewed studies published from 1981 to 2004,
including all the studies mentioned in the 2004 paper to support its
premise (the one they dismiss as unsupported).
IN another section, they highly praise the theories of a scientist who
has never published in the field, save in popular books, and fail to
mention a similar theory, published in a peer-reviewed journal, by the
same scientists who published the 2004 paper they dismiss.
I'm a non-scientist with a 30+ year interest in this particular field.
Is this REALLY how "real science" is conducted? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Sep 07, 2008 7:35 am
|
|