Peer Review as a Necessary but Unscientific Process – Can we just do some iterative science already?

Peer review is wonderful in theory.  Scientists reviewing other scientists’ work to evaluate whether the science was applied thoroughly, implemented well, and interpreted effectively can be a wonderful way to allow the best science through.  But the Reproducibility Project clearly demonstrated that something is broken – when over a quarter of the published studies reviewed could not be replicated. 

It is not a surprise to most.  Humans are involved.  We make mistakes…

read more

Research Wonder: Response Motivation – Important for Interpretation

Most agree that people have numerous motivations to participate in research.  In a recent article, Florian Keusch thoroughly details the various reasons why people participate in web surveys.  It is clear that there is no single reason — societal characteristics, individual characteristics, and survey characteristics all play a role.  But like most strong literature reviews do, it left me with this…

read more

Jim Harbaugh – A Solution to Sagging Response Rates?

Bear with me — but I have an idea.  I may have stumbled upon the solution to a troubling trend in our science.  Response rates are dropping.  We used to say that it was critical to get high response rates in our studies.  We spoke of our fight against our nemesis of “Non-Response Error”!

But then as it became clear that we were losing that fight…

read more

Research Wonder: Group Science or Puffs of Insanity?

Rarely a day passes without me saying (or hearing someone else say), “I wonder how this may impact data quality,” or, “I wonder why we keep doing it this way,” or my favorite, “I wonder if anyone else has wondered this too!

I have seen the power of the scientific method.  I have seen that ideas can grow and expand, and how they usually twist and turn.  I know that science is not linear.

So it is time for me to spin off my little wonderments to the world…

read more