The hidden side of animal cognition research: Scientists' attitudes toward bias, replicability and scientific practice.
The hidden side of animal cognition research: Scientists' attitudes toward bias, replicability and scientific practice.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1371/journal.pone.0256607
复制
发表时间：
2021
期刊：
影响因子：
3.7
通讯作者：
Clayton NS
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Farrar BG;Ostojić L;Clayton NS
动物认知研究的目的是通过在同样不同的物种范围内使用不同的方法来了解动物的思想。纵观其历史，该领域一直试图减轻在研究动物思维时出现的各种偏见，从实验者效应到拟人化。最近，也有一个焦点是如何常见的科学实践可能会影响发表的研究的可靠性和有效性。通常，这些问题在文献中由一小群对这些主题感兴趣的学者讨论。这项研究旨在调查更广泛的动物认知研究人员，询问他们对该领域面临的经典和当代问题的态度。210名活跃的动物认知研究人员完成了我们的调查，并回答了与偏见，可复制性，统计，出版物和动物认知信念有关的问题。总的来说，研究人员对研究领域的偏见持谨慎态度，但在他们自己的工作中却不那么谨慎。超过70%的研究人员认可摩根的准则是一个有用的原则，但许多人在他们的自由文本回复中对此提出了警告。研究人员自我报告说，他们的大部分研究已经发表，但他们经常报告说，研究没有发表，因为他们有负面或不确定的结果，或结果质疑“首选”的理论。研究人员很少报告自己进行了有问题的研究实践，但他们认为其他研究人员有时（52.7%的答复）或经常（27.9%的答复）进行。研究人员几乎一致认为，复制研究是重要的，但在动物认知研究中进行得太少，73.0%的受访者认为，如果进行复制研究，动物认知研究领域可能会遇到“复制危机”。同样，参与者的自由文本回答提供了动物认知研究面临的挑战的微妙画面，这些挑战可作为开放数据集的一部分。然而，在动物认知研究领域，如何解释否定结果、发表偏倚、理论偏倚和可靠性等问题却引起了许多研究者的关注。总的来说，这些数据坦率地概述了动物认知进步的障碍，并可以为关于个体研究人员以及组织和期刊如何促进动物认知方面的强大科学研究的辩论提供信息。
Animal cognition research aims to understand animal minds by using a diverse range of methods across an equally diverse range of species. Throughout its history, the field has sought to mitigate various biases that occur when studying animal minds, from experimenter effects to anthropomorphism. Recently, there has also been a focus on how common scientific practices might affect the reliability and validity of published research. Usually, these issues are discussed in the literature by a small group of scholars with a specific interest in the topics. This study aimed to survey a wider range of animal cognition researchers to ask about their attitudes towards classic and contemporary issues facing the field. Two-hundred and ten active animal cognition researchers completed our survey, and provided answers on questions relating to bias, replicability, statistics, publication, and belief in animal cognition. Collectively, researchers were wary of bias in the research field, but less so in their own work. Over 70% of researchers endorsed Morgan’s canon as a useful principle but many caveated this in their free-text responses. Researchers self-reported that most of their studies had been published, however they often reported that studies went unpublished because they had negative or inconclusive results, or results that questioned “preferred” theories. Researchers rarely reported having performed questionable research practices themselves—however they thought that other researchers sometimes (52.7% of responses) or often (27.9% of responses) perform them. Researchers near unanimously agreed that replication studies are important but too infrequently performed in animal cognition research, 73.0% of respondents suggested areas of animal cognition research could experience a ‘replication crisis’ if replication studies were performed. Consistently, participants’ free-text responses provided a nuanced picture of the challenges animal cognition research faces, which are available as part of an open dataset. However, many researchers appeared concerned with how to interpret negative results, publication bias, theoretical bias and reliability in areas of animal cognition research. Collectively, these data provide a candid overview of barriers to progress in animal cognition and can inform debates on how individual researchers, as well as organizations and journals, can facilitate robust scientific research in animal cognition.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
2.5
作者：
Buckner, Cameron
通讯作者：
Buckner, Cameron
影响因子：
0.5
作者：
Allen, Colin
通讯作者：
Allen, Colin
影响因子：
2.5
作者：
Bausman, William;Halina, Marta
通讯作者：
Halina, Marta
DOI：
10.1007/s40614-015-0047-0
发表时间：
2016-05-01
期刊：
BEHAVIOR ANALYST
影响因子：
--
作者：
Barrett, Louise
通讯作者：
Barrett, Louise
影响因子：
5.8
作者：
Boesch C
通讯作者：
Boesch C