New Issues for New Methods: Ethical and Editorial Challenges for an Experimental Philosophy

Polonioli, Andrea

doi:10.1007/s11948-016-9838-2

Cited by 6 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 88 publications

(83 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Likewise, reflections are now being published on the ethical implications of research in philosophy and ethics (Hansson 2017), on the conceptual definition and clarification of misconduct in these fields, and especially on the challenges of accurately defining and detecting plagiarism in the field of philosophy (Hansson 2008;Hansson 2015;Dougherty 2018). Other studies also examine the problems associated with selfplagiarism and duplicate publication in the humanities (Bruton et al 2020), or the extent to which the main philosophy journals comply with basic editorial standards-with somewhat disheartening results (Polonioli 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research Misconduct in the Fields of Ethics and Philosophy: Researchers’ Perceptions in Spain

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Empirical studies have revealed a disturbing prevalence of research misconduct in a wide variety of disciplines, although not, to date, in the areas of ethics and philosophy. This study aims to provide empirical evidence on perceptions of how serious a problem research misconduct is in these two disciplines in Spain, particularly regarding the effects that the model used to evaluate academics' research performance may have on their ethical behaviour. The methodological triangulation applied in the study combines a questionnaire, a debate at the annual meeting of scientific association, and in-depth interviews. Of the 541 questionnaires sent out, 201 responses were obtained (37.1% of the total sample), with a significant difference in the participation of researchers in philosophy (30.5%) and in ethics (52.8%); 26 researchers took part in the debate and 14 interviews were conducted. The questionnaire results reveal that 91.5% of the respondents considered research misconduct to be on the rise; 63.2% considered at least three of the fraudulent practices referred to in the study to be commonplace, and 84.1% identified two or more such practices. The researchers perceived a high prevalence of duplicate publication (66.5%) and self-plagiarism (59.0%), use of personal influence (57.5%) and citation manipulation (44.0%), in contrast to a low perceived incidence of data falsification or fabrication (10.0%). The debate and the interviews corroborated these data. Researchers associated the spread of these misconducts with the research evaluation model applied in Spain.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research Misconduct in the Fields of Ethics and Philosophy: Researchers’ Perceptions in Spain

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We defined Experimental Philosophy broadly (Rose and Danks 2013;Machery and O'Neill 2014) and identified relevant Experimental Philosophy papers by following a modified version of Polonioli's (2017) methodology.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Inclusion Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Polonioli (2017) considered only 3 years (2013)(2014)(2015); here we considered an additional, fourth year. Further, unlike Polonioli (2017), we excluded qualitative research articles because in the current study the focus is on the handling of quantitative results. To select the relevant papers, we accessed the PDF version of each article published in the chosen journals between 2013 and 2016, and searched for the keywords 'experiment,' 'empirical,' 'subject(s),' 'participant(s), ' 'sample,' 'test,' and 'statistic(al).'…”

Section: Inclusion Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Reporting in Experimental Philosophy: Current Standards and Recommendations for Future Practice

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent replication crises in psychology and other fields have led to intense reflection about the validity of common research practices. Much of this reflection has focussed on reporting standards, and how they may be related to the questionable research practices that could underlie a high proportion of irreproducible findings in the published record. As a developing field, it is particularly important for Experimental Philosophy to avoid some of the pitfalls that have beset other disciplines. To this end, here we provide a detailed, comprehensive assessment of current reporting practices in Experimental Philosophy. We focus on the quality of statistical reporting and the disclosure of information about study methodology. We assess all the articles using quantitative methods (n = 134) that were published over the years 2013-2016 in 29 leading philosophy journals. We find that null hypothesis significance testing is the prevalent statistical practice in Experimental Philosophy, although relying solely on this approach has been criticised in the psychological literature. To augment this approach, various additional measures have become commonplace in other fields, but we find that Experimental Philosophy has adopted these only partially: 53% of the papers report an effect size, 28% confidence intervals, 1% examined prospective statistical power and 5% report observed statistical power. Importantly, we find no direct relation between an article's reporting quality and its impact (numbers of citations). We conclude with recommendations for authors, reviewers and editors in Experimental Philosophy, to facilitate making research statistically-transparent and reproducible.Rev.Phil.Psych.

show abstract

“…While authors, reviewers and journal editors in the empirical sciences have much experience with such issues and have developed ways of addressing them that have proven successful over time, for philosophers of science these issues are new, and good practices still need to be developed. As a recent study focusing on experimental philosophy has shown, the philosophical community has so far not addressed these issues, and journals have still to develop guidelines for authors and reviewers regarding how non-traditional philosophy papers are to be handled (Polonioli 2017(Polonioli : 1030.…”

Section: Likely Future Challengesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Editorial: Fifty Years Journal for General Philosophy of Science

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is the first issue of the fiftieth volume of JGPS. Half a century is a fairly long time for a philosophical journal, so we'd like to take fifty volumes of JGPS as an occasion to look back on the past of the journal and on the field to which it contributes, to reflect upon the current state of the field and to discuss likely future challenges. Our intention is of course not to be exhaustive in any sense; instead, we'll offer a brief overview of the history of this journal and add some reflections on our editorial work.

show abstract

New Issues for New Methods: Ethical and Editorial Challenges for an Experimental Philosophy

Cited by 6 publications

References 88 publications

Research Misconduct in the Fields of Ethics and Philosophy: Researchers’ Perceptions in Spain

Research Misconduct in the Fields of Ethics and Philosophy: Researchers’ Perceptions in Spain

Reporting in Experimental Philosophy: Current Standards and Recommendations for Future Practice

Editorial: Fifty Years Journal for General Philosophy of Science

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About