David Trafimow
New Mexico State University
Bio
Articles
Michael Hout, Andrew Conway, and I wish to submit our manuscript for publication in Theory & Psychology. It is entitled: “Concerns that demographic requirements of JEP journals are philosophically and ethically problematic.” We would like to explain how this manuscript came about and why we are submitting it to your journal.
We believe that the demographics requirement required by an increasing number of APA journals, exemplified by JEP: HPP, is deleterious for science and unethical too. Consequently, we wrote a manuscript and submitted it to JEP:HPP. Unfortunately, the editor refused to send it out for review, but not because of any problem with our manuscript. The stated reason for the refusal is that the JEP:HPP policy is in accord with the official position of the APA, thereby rendering our manuscript inappropriate for review. Although we do not disagree that the JEP:HPP policy is in accord with the official position of the APA, we nevertheless continue to believe that the JEP:HPP policy is deleterious for science and unethical too. In essence, the reason the editor refused to have our manuscript reviewed is appeal to authority, a notoriously poor basis for serious discussion.
According to the journal scope statement of the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance (JEP:HPP), researchers are now required to report demographics and justify their sample compositions. However, we feel that the requirement is indefensible on both conceptual and ethical grounds. Conceptually, the requirement wrongly emphasizes generalizing findings rather than generalizing theories without recognizing the crucial role auxiliary assumptions play in the generalization process. Moreover, it distracts researchers with a focus on theoretically irrelevant measures, fails to distinguish between including demographics as moderators in analyses versus as mere classification percentages, encourages researchers to commit the fallacy of using interindividual summary statistics to draw conclusions at the intraindividual level, and potentially reduces sampling precision. Ethically, the requirement places poor or minority researchers at a disadvantage and has the potential to create unnecessary anxiety for participants. It also pushes European and British researchers to violate the General Data Protection Regulation that operates in Europe and the UK, thereby placing those researchers in an untenable situation.
Conferences
No conferences here!
You haven't subscribed to any conferences yet.
© 2018–2025 Researchers.One