skip to main content
Visitante
Meu Espaço
Minha Conta
Sair
Identificação
This feature requires javascript
Tags
Revistas Eletrônicas (eJournals)
Livros Eletrônicos (eBooks)
Bases de Dados
Bibliotecas USP
Ajuda
Ajuda
Idioma:
Inglês
Espanhol
Português
This feature required javascript
This feature requires javascript
Primo Search
Busca Geral
Busca Geral
Acervo Físico
Acervo Físico
Produção Intelectual da USP
Produção USP
Search For:
Clear Search Box
Search in:
Busca Geral
Or hit Enter to replace search target
Or select another collection:
Search in:
Busca Geral
Busca Avançada
Busca por Índices
This feature requires javascript
This feature requires javascript
"Positive" results increase down the Hierarchy of the Sciences
Fanelli, Daniele Scalas, Enrico
PloS one, 2010-04, Vol.5 (4), p.e10068-e10068
[Periódico revisado por pares]
United States: Public Library of Science
Citações
Citado por
Exibir Online
Detalhes
Resenhas & Tags
Mais Opções
Nº de Citações
This feature requires javascript
Enviar para
Adicionar ao Meu Espaço
Remover do Meu Espaço
E-mail (máximo 30 registros por vez)
Imprimir
Link permanente
Referência
EasyBib
EndNote
RefWorks
del.icio.us
Exportar RIS
Exportar BibTeX
This feature requires javascript
Título:
"Positive" results increase down the Hierarchy of the Sciences
Autor:
Fanelli, Daniele
Scalas, Enrico
Assuntos:
Accountability
;
Analysis
;
Animal cognition
;
Bias
;
Biochemistry
;
Biological effects
;
Biological materials
;
Biological Science Disciplines - standards
;
Biology
;
Chemistry
;
Cognition
;
Cognitive ability
;
Computer Science
;
Discovery
;
Ecology
;
Ecology/Behavioral Ecology
;
Evidence-Based Healthcare/Bedside Evidence-Based Medicine
;
Evidence-Based Healthcare/Methods for Diagnostic and Therapeutic Studies
;
Evidence-Based Healthcare/Quality and Safety in Medical Practice
;
Evolutionary Biology
;
Experiments
;
Genetics and Genomics
;
Hardness
;
Hardness (Materials)
;
Hierarchies
;
Hypotheses
;
Immunology
;
Intellectual development
;
Mathematics/Statistics
;
Mechanical properties
;
Mental disorders
;
Methods
;
Natural Science Disciplines - standards
;
Natural sciences
;
Particle physics
;
Pharmacology
;
Philosophers
;
Philosophy
;
Physical sciences
;
Physics
;
Power
;
Psychiatry
;
Psychology
;
Publications - standards
;
Publications - trends
;
Regression analysis
;
Research - standards
;
Research - trends
;
Research methodology
;
Science
;
Science - classification
;
Science - methods
;
Science - standards
;
Science Policy
;
Scientific research
;
Scientists
;
Social psychology
;
Social sciences
;
Social Sciences - standards
;
Sociology
;
Space science
;
Studies
;
Unconsciousness
É parte de:
PloS one, 2010-04, Vol.5 (4), p.e10068-e10068
Notas:
ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
Conceived and designed the experiments: DF. Performed the experiments: DF. Analyzed the data: DF. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: DF. Wrote the paper: DF.
Descrição:
The hypothesis of a Hierarchy of the Sciences with physical sciences at the top, social sciences at the bottom, and biological sciences in-between is nearly 200 years old. This order is intuitive and reflected in many features of academic life, but whether it reflects the "hardness" of scientific research--i.e., the extent to which research questions and results are determined by data and theories as opposed to non-cognitive factors--is controversial. This study analysed 2434 papers published in all disciplines and that declared to have tested a hypothesis. It was determined how many papers reported a "positive" (full or partial) or "negative" support for the tested hypothesis. If the hierarchy hypothesis is correct, then researchers in "softer" sciences should have fewer constraints to their conscious and unconscious biases, and therefore report more positive outcomes. Results confirmed the predictions at all levels considered: discipline, domain and methodology broadly defined. Controlling for observed differences between pure and applied disciplines, and between papers testing one or several hypotheses, the odds of reporting a positive result were around 5 times higher among papers in the disciplines of Psychology and Psychiatry and Economics and Business compared to Space Science, 2.3 times higher in the domain of social sciences compared to the physical sciences, and 3.4 times higher in studies applying behavioural and social methodologies on people compared to physical and chemical studies on non-biological material. In all comparisons, biological studies had intermediate values. These results suggest that the nature of hypotheses tested and the logical and methodological rigour employed to test them vary systematically across disciplines and fields, depending on the complexity of the subject matter and possibly other factors (e.g., a field's level of historical and/or intellectual development). On the other hand, these results support the scientific status of the social sciences against claims that they are completely subjective, by showing that, when they adopt a scientific approach to discovery, they differ from the natural sciences only by a matter of degree.
Editor:
United States: Public Library of Science
Idioma:
Inglês
Links
View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed
This feature requires javascript
This feature requires javascript
This feature requires javascript
This feature requires javascript
Buscando em bases de dados remotas. Favor aguardar.
Buscando por
em
scope:(USP_VIDEOS),scope:("PRIMO"),scope:(USP_FISICO),scope:(USP_EREVISTAS),scope:(USP),scope:(USP_EBOOKS),scope:(USP_PRODUCAO),primo_central_multiple_fe
Mostrar o que foi encontrado até o momento
This feature requires javascript
This feature requires javascript