DOCSLIB.ORG

Sprievodca Svetom Vedeckého Publikovania Učebný Text Pre Kurz Publikačný Poradca

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sprievodca Svetom Vedeckého Publikovania Učebný Text Pre Kurz Publikačný Poradca 0 Centrum vedecko-technických informácií SR, Bratislava Sprievodca svetom vedeckého publikovania Učebný text pre kurz Publikačný poradca Jitka Dobbersteinová – Simona Hudecová – Zuzana Stožická Bratislava, 2019 1 Názov Sprievodca svetom vedeckého publikovania Podnázov Učebný text pre kurz Publikačný poradca Autori Mgr. Jitka Dobbersteinová PhDr. Simona Hudecová RNDr. Zuzana Stožická, PhD. Recenzenti doc. Mgr. Radoslav Harman, PhD., Fakulta matematiky, fyziky a informatiky Univerzity Komenského PhDr. Ľubica Jedličková, PhD., Slovenská poľnohospodárska knižnica Prof. RNDr. Vladimír Kováč, CSc., Prírodovedecká fakulta Univerzity Komenského Korektorka Mgr. Lucia Nižníková Vydalo Vydavateľstvo otvorenej vedy, Centrum vedecko-technických informácií SR, Bratislava Rok vydania 2019 prvé vydanie Tento učebný text (s výnimkou označených ilustrácií, ktoré sú použité so súhlasom majiteľa autorských práv) je šírený pod licenciou Creative Commons 4.0 – Atribution CC BY, ktorá umožňuje voľné používanie diela za predpokladu uvedenia mien autorov. Obálka Ing. Pavol Martinický Creative Commons 4.0 – Atribution-Non Commercial CC BY-NC (nekomerčné používanie diela za predpokladu uvedenia autora) ISBN 978-80-89965-17-5 2 Názov Sprievodca svetom vedeckého publikovania Podnázov Učebný text pre kurz Publikačný poradca Autori Jitka Dobbersteinová, Simona Hudecová, Zuzana Stožická Recenzenti doc. Mgr. Radoslav Harman, PhD. PhDr. Ľubica Jedličková, PhD. prof. RNDr. Vladimír Kováč, CSc. Počet AH 19 AH Náklad online Vydalo Vydavateľstvo otvorenej vedy, Centrum vedecko-technických informácií SR, Bratislava Rok vydania 2019 ISBN 978-80-89965-17-5 3 4 Poďakovanie Autorky ďakujú recenzentom Radoslavovi Harmanovi, Ľubici Jedličkovej a Vladimírovi Kováčovi za cenné pripomienky a rady, ktoré pomohli zlepšiť rukopis a Lucii Nižníkovej za starostlivú korektúru. Tento učebný text bol vytvorený v rámci implementácie národného projektu „Informačný systém výskumu a vývoja / prístupy do databáz pre potreby výskumných inštitúcií“ (NISPEZ IV), kód ITMS Projektu: 313011I407, ktorý je spolufinancovaný z Európskeho fondu regionálneho rozvoja (EFRR/ERDF) v rámci Operačného programu Výskum a Inovácie. Investícia do Vašej budúcnosti. 5 Obsah ÚVOD (Z. Stožická) .................................................................................................................................................................. 11 1 VEDECKÁ KOMUNIKÁCIA – VÝVOJ A AKTUÁLNE TRENDY (Z. Stožická) .......................................................... 13 1.1 KOMUNIKÁCIA VO VEDE ........................................................................................................................................................................ 13 1.2 VEDECKÝ ČLÁNOK A VEDECKÝ ČASOPIS .............................................................................................................................................. 16 1.3 PUBLIKAČNÝ PRIEMYSEL ....................................................................................................................................................................... 17 1.4 STRUČNÁ HISTÓRIA VEDECKÉHO PUBLIKOVANIA .............................................................................................................................. 18 1.4.1 Úsvit vedeckých časopisov .................................................................................................................................................... 18 1.4.2 Journal des sçavans (Časopis učencov) ............................................................................................................................ 19 1.4.3 Philosophical Transactions (Filozofické pojednania) ................................................................................................ 20 1.4.4 Prvé vedecké časopisy na Slovensku ................................................................................................................................. 21 1.4.5 Nature, Science a Cell.............................................................................................................................................................. 23 1.4.6 Začiatky Elsevieru .................................................................................................................................................................... 26 1.4.7 Current Contents ...................................................................................................................................................................... 27 1.4.8 Pergamon Press alebo predohra ku kríze ....................................................................................................................... 27 1.4.9 Kríza akademického publikovania .................................................................................................................................... 29 1.4.10 Hranice medzinárodnej vedy ............................................................................................................................................ 30 1.4.11 Vedecká komunikácia v čase internetu ......................................................................................................................... 32 1.4.12 V sieti je miesta dosť ............................................................................................................................................................. 33 OTÁZKY ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 39 2 AKO NAPÍSAŤ KVALITNÝ VEDECKÝ ČLÁNOK (Z. Stožická) .................................................................................. 40 2.1 ŠTRUKTÚRA ČLÁNKU ............................................................................................................................................................................. 42 2.1.1 Autori ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 44 2.1.2 Názov ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 45 2.1.3 Abstrakt........................................................................................................................................................................................ 46 2.1.4 Kľúčové slová ............................................................................................................................................................................. 46 2.1.5 Úvod (prehľad súčasného stavu poznania) ................................................................................................................... 46 2.1.6 Materiál a metódy .................................................................................................................................................................... 47 2.1.7 Výsledky........................................................................................................................................................................................ 48 2.1.8 Diskusia ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 49 2.1.9 Závery ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 49 2.1.10 Poďakovanie ............................................................................................................................................................................ 49 2.1.11 Zoznam použitej literatúry ................................................................................................................................................ 50 2.1.12 Prílohy ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 52 2.2 KOOPERATÍVNE PÍSANIE ....................................................................................................................................................................... 53 2.3 PO NAPÍSANÍ ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 53 OTÁZKY ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 55 3 VÝBER ČASOPISU (Z. Stožická) ...................................................................................................................................... 56 3.1 AKO POSTUPOVAŤ? ................................................................................................................................................................................ 57 3.1.1 Poznať terén ............................................................................................................................................................................... 57 3.1.2 Poznať podstatu svojho výskumu, určiť váhu výsledkov .........................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Reproducibility and Replicability in Science (2019)
    THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS This PDF is available at http://nap.edu/25303 SHARE Reproducibility and Replicability in Science (2019) DETAILS 256 pages | 6 x 9 | PAPERBACK ISBN 978-0-309-48616-3 | DOI 10.17226/25303 CONTRIBUTORS GET THIS BOOK Committee on Reproducibility and Replicability in Science; Board on Behavioral, Cognitive, and Sensory Sciences; Committee on National Statistics; Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education; Nuclear and Radiation Studies FIND RELATED TITLES Board; Division on Earth and Life Studies; Board on Mathematical Sciences and Analytics; Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics; Division on SUGGESTEDEngineering an CITATIONd Physical Sciences; Board on Research Data and Information; NCaotmiomnaittl eAec oand eSmciiesn coef ,S Ecniegninceeesr, inEgn,g Mineedeircininge,, aanndd MPeudbilcicin Peo 2li0c1y;9 P. Roleicpyr oadnudcibility aGnlodb Rael Aplfifcaairbsi;li tNy ainti oSncaiel Ancea.d Wemaisehsi nogf tSonc,ie DnCce: sT,h Een Ngianteioenrainl gA, caandde Mmeiedsi cPinress. https://doi.org/10.17226/25303. Visit the National Academies Press at NAP.edu and login or register to get: – Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of scientific reports – 10% off the price of print titles – Email or social media notifications of new titles related to your interests – Special offers and discounts Distribution, posting, or copying of this PDF is strictly prohibited without written permission of the National Academies Press. (Request Permission) Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this
    [Show full text]
  • $1.2 Million Conflict of Interest Plagues Climate Change Denial Research
    $1.2 Million Conflict of Interest Plagues Climate Change Denial Research... http://natmonitor.com/2015/02/22/1-2-million-conflict-of-interest-plague... $1.2 Million Conflict of Interest Plagues Climate Change Denial Research By James Paladino, National Monitor | February 22, 2015 A recently uncovered document shows that Wei-Hok Soon, a well-known aerospace engineer, was granted over $1.2 million from fossil-fuel companies for climate research and failed to disclose a conflict of interest in his peer-reviewed publications. In Washington, climate change deniers are fighting a fierce battle to stave off energy policy reform. The latest casualty of this war of ideas is Wei-Hock Soon, a part-time employee of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Resilient to the scientific consensus that human carbon emissions are fueling gradual warming, the aerospace engineer has served as a beacon for conservative legislators. A recently uncovered document shows that Soon was granted over $1.2 million from fossil-fuel companies and failed to disclose a conflict of interest in his peer-reviewed publications. Since the Smithsonian is part of the federal government, former Greenpeace member Kert Davies legally obtained the Soon’s grant agreements through the Freedom of Information Act. Contributors include the American Petroleum Institute, the Koch brothers, Exxon Mobil and Southern Company. Several scientific papers and a congressional testimonial were termed as “deliverables,” reports The New York Times. “These proposals and contracts show debatable interventions in science literally on behalf of the Southern Company and the Kochs,” said Davies. “What it shows is the continuation of a long-term campaign by specific fossil-fuel companies and interests to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change.” These recent revelations have drawn fire from members of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center and NASA, among others.
    [Show full text]
  • Sources of False Positives and False Negatives in the STATCHECK 1 Algorithm: Reply to Nuijten Et Al
    Cite as: Schmidt, T. (2017). Sources of false positives and false negatives in the STATCHECK 1 algorithm: Reply to Nuijten et al. (2016). arXiv:1610.01010v8 [q-bio.NC] Sources of false positives and false negatives in the STATCHECK algorithm: Reply to Nuijten et al. (2016) arXiv:1610.01010v8 [q-bio.NC] Thomas Schmidt University of Kaiserslautern, Germany Experimental Psychology Unit www.sowi.uni-kl.de/psychologie [email protected] Abstract STATCHECK is an R algorithm designed to scan papers automatically for inconsistencies between test statistics and their associated p values (Nuijten et al., 2016). The goal of this comment is to point out an important and well-documented flaw in this busily applied algorithm: It cannot handle corrected p values. As a result, statistical tests applying appropriate corrections to the p value (e.g., for multiple tests, post-hoc tests, violations of assumptions, etc.) are likely to be flagged as reporting inconsistent statistics, whereas papers omitting necessary corrections are certified as correct. The STATCHECK algorithm is thus valid for only a subset of scientific papers, and conclusions about the quality or integrity of statistical reports should never be based solely on this program. STATCHECK is an R algorithm designed to scan papers automatically for inconsistencies between test statistics and their reported p values (Nuijten, Hartgerink, van Assen, Epskamp, and Wicherts, 2016). The algorithm is currently part of these authors’ project to automatically scan thousands of scientific psychology papers and post the results on a website when the program detects some discrepancy, essentially flagging papers for reporting inconsistent test statistics.
    [Show full text]
  • Open PDF File, 8.71 MB, for February 01, 2017 Appendix In
    Case 4:16-cv-00469-K Document 175 Filed 02/01/17 Page 1 of 10 PageID 5923 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, § § Plaintiff, § v. § No. 4:16-CV-469-K § ERIC TRADD SCHNEIDERMAN, § Attorney General of New York, in his § official capacity, and MAURA TRACY § HEALEY, Attorney General of § Massachusetts, in her official capacity, § § Defendants. § APPENDIX IN SUPPORT OF EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THIS COURT’S PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER THE DEFENDANTS Exhibit Description Page(s) N/A Declaration of Justin Anderson (Feb. 1, 2017) v – ix A Transcript of the AGs United for Clean Power App. 1 –App. 21 Press Conference, held on March 29, 2016, which was prepared by counsel based on a video recording of the event. The video recording is available at http://www.ag.ny.gov/press- release/ag-schneiderman-former-vice-president- al-gore-and-coalition-attorneys-general-across B E-mail from Wendy Morgan, Chief of Public App. 22 – App. 32 Protection, Office of the Vermont Attorney General to Michael Meade, Director, Intergovernmental Affairs Bureau, Office of the New York Attorney General (Mar. 18, 2016, 6:06 PM) C Union of Concerned Scientists, Peter Frumhoff, App. 33 – App. 37 http://www.ucsusa.org/about/staff/staff/peter- frumhoff.html#.WI-OaVMrLcs (last visited Jan. 20, 2017, 2:05 PM) Case 4:16-cv-00469-K Document 175 Filed 02/01/17 Page 2 of 10 PageID 5924 Exhibit Description Page(s) D Union of Concerned Scientists, Smoke, Mirrors & App.
    [Show full text]
  • Changes on CRAN 2014-07-01 to 2014-12-31
    NEWS AND NOTES 192 Changes on CRAN 2014-07-01 to 2014-12-31 by Kurt Hornik and Achim Zeileis New packages in CRAN task views Bayesian BayesTree. Cluster fclust, funFEM, funHDDC, pgmm, tclust. Distributions FatTailsR, RTDE, STAR, predfinitepop, statmod. Econometrics LinRegInteractive, MSBVAR, nonnest2, phtt. Environmetrics siplab. Finance GCPM, MSBVAR, OptionPricing, financial, fractal, riskSimul. HighPerformanceComputing GUIProfiler, PGICA, aprof. MachineLearning BayesTree, LogicForest, hdi, mlr, randomForestSRC, stabs, vcrpart. MetaAnalysis MAVIS, ecoreg, ipdmeta, metaplus. NumericalMathematics RootsExtremaInflections, Rserve, SimplicialCubature, fastGHQuad, optR. OfficialStatistics CoImp, RecordLinkage, rworldmap, tmap, vardpoor. Optimization RCEIM, blowtorch, globalOptTests, irace, isotone, lbfgs. Phylogenetics BAMMtools, BoSSA, DiscML, HyPhy, MPSEM, OutbreakTools, PBD, PCPS, PHYLOGR, RADami, RNeXML, Reol, Rphylip, adhoc, betapart, dendextend, ex- pands, expoTree, jaatha, kdetrees, mvMORPH, outbreaker, pastis, pegas, phyloTop, phyloland, rdryad, rphast, strap, surface, taxize. Psychometrics IRTShiny, PP, WrightMap, mirtCAT, pairwise. ReproducibleResearch NMOF. Robust TEEReg, WRS2, robeth, robustDA, robustgam, robustloggamma, robustreg, ror, rorutadis. Spatial PReMiuM. SpatioTemporal BayesianAnimalTracker, TrackReconstruction, fishmove, mkde, wildlifeDI. Survival DStree, ICsurv, IDPSurvival, MIICD, MST, MicSim, PHeval, PReMiuM, aft- gee, bshazard, bujar, coxinterval, gamboostMSM, imputeYn, invGauss, lsmeans, multipleNCC, paf, penMSM, spBayesSurv,
    [Show full text]
  • The Reproducibility of Statistical Results in Psychological Research: an Investigation Using Unpublished Raw Data
    Psychological Methods © 2020 American Psychological Association 2020, Vol. 2, No. 999, 000 ISSN: 1082-989X https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000365 The Reproducibility of Statistical Results in Psychological Research: An Investigation Using Unpublished Raw Data Richard Artner, Thomas Verliefde, Sara Steegen, Sara Gomes, Frits Traets, Francis Tuerlinckx, and Wolf Vanpaemel Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, KU Leuven Abstract We investigated the reproducibility of the major statistical conclusions drawn in 46 articles published in 2012 in three APA journals. After having identified 232 key statistical claims, we tried to reproduce, for each claim, the test statistic, its degrees of freedom, and the corresponding p value, starting from the raw data that were provided by the authors and closely following the Method section in the article. Out of the 232 claims, we were able to successfully reproduce 163 (70%), 18 of which only by deviating from the article’s analytical description. Thirteen (7%) of the 185 claims deemed significant by the authors are no longer so. The reproduction successes were often the result of cumbersome and time-consuming trial-and-error work, suggesting that APA style reporting in conjunction with raw data makes numerical verification at least hard, if not impossible. This article discusses the types of mistakes we could identify and the tediousness of our reproduction efforts in the light of a newly developed taxonomy for reproducibility. We then link our findings with other findings of empirical research on this topic, give practical recommendations on how to achieve reproducibility, and discuss the challenges of large-scale reproducibility checks as well as promising ideas that could considerably increase the reproducibility of psychological research.
    [Show full text]
  • Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Research
    Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Research... http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash... http://nyti.ms/1DIYhU3 SCIENCE Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Researcher By JUSTIN GILLIS and JOHN SCHWARTZ FEB. 21, 2015 For years, politicians wanting to block legislation on climate change have bolstered their arguments by pointing to the work of a handful of scientists who claim that greenhouse gases pose little risk to humanity. One of the names they invoke most often is Wei-Hock Soon, known as Willie, a scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who claims that variations in the sun’s energy can largely explain recent global warming. He has often appeared on conservative news programs, testified before Congress and in state capitals, and starred at conferences of people who deny the risks of global warming. But newly released documents show the extent to which Dr. Soon’s work has been tied to funding he received from corporate interests. He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work. The documents show that Dr. Soon, in correspondence with his corporate funders, described many of his scientific papers as “deliverables” that he completed in exchange for their money.
    [Show full text]
  • Replicability, Robustness, and Reproducibility in Psychological Science
    1 Replicability, Robustness, and Reproducibility in Psychological Science Brian A. Nosek Center for Open Science; University of Virginia Tom E. Hardwicke University of Amsterdam Hannah Moshontz University of Wisconsin-Madison Aurélien Allard University of California, Davis Katherine S. Corker Grand Valley State University Anna Dreber Stockholm School of Economics; University of Innsbruck Fiona Fidler University of Melbourne Joe Hilgard Illinois State University Melissa Kline Struhl Center for Open Science Michèle Nuijten Meta-Research Center; Tilburg University Julia Rohrer Leipzig University Felipe Romero University of Groningen Anne Scheel Eindhoven University of Technology Laura Scherer University of Colorado Denver - Anschutz Medical Campus Felix Schönbrodt Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, LMU Open Science Center Simine Vazire University of Melbourne In press at the Annual Review of Psychology Final version Completed: April 6, 2021 Authors’ note: B.A.N. and M.K.S. are employees of the nonprofit Center for Open Science that has a mission to increase openness, integrity, and reproducibility of research. K.S.C. is the unpaid executive officer of the nonprofit Society for the Improvement of Psychological Science. This work was supported by grants to B.A.N. from Arnold Ventures, John Templeton Foundation, Templeton World Charity Foundation, and Templeton Religion Trust. T.E.H. received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No. 841188. We thank Adam Gill for assistance creating Figures 1, 2, and S2. Data, materials, and code are available at https://osf.io/7np92/. B.A.N. Drafted the outline and manuscript sections, collaborated with section leads on conceptualizing and drafting their components, coded replication study outcomes for Figure 1, coded journal policies for Figure 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Uva-DARE (Digital Academic Repository)
    UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository) Networked Content Analysis: The case of climate change Niederer, S.M.C. Publication date 2016 Document Version Final published version Link to publication Citation for published version (APA): Niederer, S. M. C. (2016). Networked Content Analysis: The case of climate change. General rights It is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). Disclaimer/Complaints regulations If you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: https://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible. UvA-DARE is a service provided by the library of the University of Amsterdam (https://dare.uva.nl) Download date:29 Sep 2021 3 Climate Change Debate Actors in Science and on the Web On DeceMber 12 of 2015, a consequential agreeMent in the histo- ry of global cliMate negotiations was reached when 195 coun- tries adopted the so-called Paris Climate Agreement during the 21st annual Conference of the Parties, better known as COP21. Two weeks of “fierce negotiations” ended with the words “I hear no objection in the room, I declare the Paris Climate Agreement adopted,” spoken by the president Laurent Fabius (United Nations Conference on Climate Change, 2015).
    [Show full text]
  • Multiple Regression Analysis of Anthropogenic and Heliogenic Climate Drivers, and Some Cautious Forecasts a Frank Stefani
    Multiple regression analysis of anthropogenic and heliogenic climate drivers, and some cautious forecasts a Frank Stefani aHelmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Institute of Fluid Dynamics, Bautzner Landstr. 400, 01328 Dresden, Germany ARTICLEINFO ABSTRACT Keywords: The two main drivers of climate change on sub-Milankovic time scales are re-assessed by means of Climate change a multiple regression analysis. Evaluating linear combinations of the logarithm of carbon dioxide Solar cycle concentration and the geomagnetic aa-index as a proxy for solar activity, we reproduce the sea surface 2 Forecast temperature (HadSST) since the middle of the 19th century with an adjusted R value of around 87 per cent for a climate sensitivity (of TCR type) in the range of 0.6 K until 1.6 K per doubling of CO2. The solution of the regression is quite sensitive: when including data from the last decade, the simultaneous occurrence of a strong El Niño on one side and low aa-values on the other side lead to a preponderance of solutions with relatively high climate sensitivities around 1.6 K. If those later data are excluded, the regression leads to a significantly higher weight of the aa-index and a correspondingly lower climate sensitivity going down to 0.6 K. The plausibility of such low values is discussed in view of recent experimental and satellite-borne measurements. We argue that a further decade of data collection will be needed to allow for a reliable distinction between low and high sensitivity values. Based on recent ideas about a quasi-deterministic planetary synchronization of the solar dynamo, we make a first attempt to predict the aa-index and the resulting temperature anomaly for various typical CO2 scenarios.
    [Show full text]
  • The Science of Technology and Human Behavior: Standards, Old and New
    The Science of Technology and Human Behavior: Standards, Old and New Malte Elson Ruhr University Bochum Andrew K. Przybylski University of Oxford The Present Technology and Human Behavior – a title that could not be more generic for a Special Issue. On its face, the phenomena examined in this issue are not distinct from others published in the Journal of Media Psychology (JMP): Can immersive technology be used to promote pro-environmental behaviors? (Soliman, Peetz, & Davydenko); How do subtitles and complexity of MOOC-type videos impact learning outcomes? (van der Zee, Admiraal, Paas, Saab, & Giesbers); Does cooperative video game play foster prosocial behavior? (Breuer, Velez, Bowman, Wulf, & Bente); What is the role of video game use in the unique risk environment of college students? (Holz Ivory, Ivory, & Lanier); Do interactive narratives have the potential to advocate social change? (Steinemann, Iten, Opwis, Forde, Frasseck, & Mekler). What makes this issue special is not a thematic focus, but the nature of the scientific approach to hypothesis testing: It is explicitly confirmatory. All five studies are registered reports which are reviewed in two phases: First, the theoretical background, hypotheses, methods, and analysis plans of a study are peer-reviewed before the data are collected. If they are evaluated as sound, the study receives an “in-principle” acceptance, and researchers proceed to conduct it (taking potential changes or additions suggested by the reviewers into consideration). Consequently, the data collected can be used as a true (dis-)confirmatory hypothesis test. In a second step, the soundness of the analyses and discussion section are reviewed, but the publication decision is not contingent on the outcome of the study (see our call for papers; Elson, Przybylski, and Krämer, 2015).
    [Show full text]
  • Hockey Stick’ Global Warming’S Latest Brawl
    spotlight No. 281 – February 25, 2006 BREAKING THE ‘HOCKEY STICK’ Global Warming’s Latest Brawl S U M M A R Y : Evidence from throughout the world shows that the plan- et was relatively warm 1,000 years ago during the Medieval Warm Period and relatively cold 500 years ago during the Little Ice Age. When the 1°C (1.8°F) of global warming of the past 100 years is considered in the context of climate variability of the last 1,000 years, the recent warming looks quite natural and nothing out of the ordinary. In 2001, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change prominently featured an important graph of north- ern hemispheric temperatures over the past 1,000 years, and the plot resem- bled a hockey stick. This same graph was recently highlighted in testimony to the North Carolina Legislative Commission on Climate Change. In this graph, the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age disappeared, and after 900 years of nearly steady temperatures, warming dominates the most recent 100 years. The new “hockey stick” depiction makes the recent warming look high- ly unnatural, thereby lending credence to the argument that human activities are the driving force behind global warming. The fights over the hockey stick have been among the most vicious in the two decades of heated debate over global warming. n recent months the issue of global warming has become a focus of at- tention for North Carolina policy makers. In 2005 the General Assembly established a commission on climate change to determine if the state can iadopti policies that would generate net benefits in mitigating possible global warming.
    [Show full text]