Guidelines for Science
Evidence-Based Checklists, Kesten Green and Scott Armstrong seek reviewers for their paper on doing science
Kesten Green and I have made further revisions in our paper, Guidelines for Science: Evidence-based Checklists, thanks to a large extent from some helpful reviews. The structure of the paper has changed, writing has been improved by a fleet of editors, additional references have been added, and, most important, the checklists have been improved. Our review cuts all fields. You will find many studies conducted marketing as I have been publishing papers on this topic since the 1960s.
This is an invited paper, so we need to get our own reviews. We are especially interested in relevant experimental papers that have been overlooked, errors of omission, and mistakes. In particular let me know if we have overlooked any of your papers.
It is important to get this right as readership of this working paper has been high. For example, it was posted a bit over a year on ResearchGate and the “Reads” are now at about 8,000. None of my prior 150 journal articles had anywhere near as many reads on ResearchGate— but then, ResearchGate is much younger than I am.
You might want try the Criteria for Scientific Research Checklist (Exhibit 1). Electronic copies of the checklist are available at GuidelinesforScience.com. You can now rate papers for their “compliance to science” in less than half an hour. For example, you could check one of your own papers. You might also consider this as one way to assess applicants to your faculty.
Gary Lilian was one of the key people getting me started on this project a few years ago. He suggested this as he was looking for a checklist that would be useful for teaching PhD students.
I look forward to your suggestions. We have much more that we need to do to complete this paper.
J. Scott Armstrong, Professor
The Wharton School, JMHH 747
U. of Pennsylvania, Phila., PA 19104
Home Phone 610-622-6480