↓ Skip to main content

From Discovery to Justification: Outline of an Ideal Research Program in Empirical Psychology

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
18 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
75 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
From Discovery to Justification: Outline of an Ideal Research Program in Empirical Psychology
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, October 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01847
Pubmed ID
Authors

Erich H. Witte, Frank Zenker

Abstract

The gold standard for an empirical science is the replicability of its research results. But the estimated average replicability rate of key-effects that top-tier psychology journals report falls between 36 and 39% (objective vs. subjective rate; Open Science Collaboration, 2015). So the standard mode of applying null-hypothesis significance testing (NHST) fails to adequately separate stable from random effects. Therefore, NHST does not fully convince as a statistical inference strategy. We argue that the replicability crisis is "home-made" because more sophisticated strategies can deliver results the successful replication of which is sufficiently probable. Thus, we can overcome the replicability crisis by integrating empirical results into genuine research programs. Instead of continuing to narrowly evaluate only the stability of data against random fluctuations (discovery context), such programs evaluate rival hypotheses against stable data (justification context).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 75 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 19%
Student > Master 13 17%
Researcher 10 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Student > Bachelor 5 7%
Other 18 24%
Unknown 9 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 41 55%
Philosophy 4 5%
Computer Science 3 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 3%
Other 11 15%
Unknown 12 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 November 2017.
All research outputs
#3,154,772
of 24,174,783 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#6,005
of 32,485 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,296
of 332,368 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#170
of 605 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,174,783 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 32,485 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 332,368 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 605 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.