NHST (null hypothesis significance testing) is the most popular statistical paradigm in psychology. Mistakes in interpretation of its assumptions and their consequences are topic for methodological and statistical discussion for over fifty years. Article presents two problems associated with NHST that are particularly prevalent in psychology: identifying non-significant results with research failure and conducting underpowered research. They can contribute to increase in exploiting questionable research practices in order to obtain desirable, significant outcomes. Three practices: p-hacking, HARKing and selective publishing are described, along with analysis of their impact on replication crisis in psychological science.
The new evaluation rules proposed by the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education in July 2018 are set to cure some of the ailments of the existing system, notably the “punktoza” phenomenon (i.e. publishing for volume, not scientific quality). However, it should be pointed out that the method of fixing old “bugs” might in fact create some new ones. In this article I discuss three elements of the proposed regulations, namely: the principle of “inheritance of prestige”, treatment of chapters in edited volumes, and possible variants of ministerial registry of academic publishers. To address those issues empirically I use an existing dataset covering citation of books in 2009–2013 (Torres-Salinas et al. 2014). While the new evaluation rules apply relatively high value to chapters in edited volumes, they in fact have disproportionately low scientific impact. What is more, the correlation between citation of books and chapters in edited volumes is very low, casting doubt on the assumed “inheritance of publishers' prestige”. Finally, there seems to be a high risk that the registry of publishers will not reproduce the exponential distribution observed in the actual structure of scientific impact (and apparently sought by the new system), thereby jeopardizing validity of such evaluation.
This article discusses the challenges and problems caused by predatory journals in scholarly communication. By focusing on the editorial practices, I describe the case of Dr. Anna Fraud (Anna O. Szust in Polish): a bogus scientist created by four Polish scholars. Dr. Fraud became a member of editorial boards in over 40 scientific journals although she is a fake person and, obviously has no experience in journal editing. The present paper aims to show that scientist always have to care about a quality control and a peer review system. The article concludes with a presentation of the ‘Think. Check. Submit’ Initiative which provides useful and helpful tools for analysing journals by potential contributors.
This article is confrontational with the theses presented in the paper: O pewnym (chybionym) studium przypadku [About a (wrong) case study ] (Chybińska 2017), which is the answer to the issues presented in the article: Etyka w przekładzie specjalistycznym a kompetencje tłumacza tekstów specjalistycznych — studium przypadku [Ethics in specialized translation and competence of specialist translator: case study] (Boroch 2017). In this article (Boroch 2017), the methodological principles in the specialist translation and the substantive and ethical consequences of their violation have been presented. Exemplary material was the Polish translation of Henryk Hiż's article: Peirce's Influence on Logic in Poland (Hiż 1997, 264–270) published in ”Studia z Filozofii Polskiej” in 2015 (Hiż 2015, 21–29) along with a biographical section (Chybińska 2015, 29–33) which both constitute a coherent publication. The article has raised the following issues: (1) the lack of justification of the basis of translation, i.e. the primacy of the manuscript over the printed version, that is the last one controlled by the author; (2) inconsistency with regard to termination of translation; (3) unauthorized introduction of a Polish neologism “dylematyczny” derived from the (non-existent) English lexical unit “dylemmatic” (Sic!); (4) proposal of the notation of Peirce's law: (p, q, r ) (Sic!).
Czarny Paryż [The Back Paris] is a crime novel written by Jolanta Fuchsówna, journalist and writer, and Jan Brzękowski, leading poet of the Cracow Avant-garde who lived in Paris, and serialized in the Cracow daily Ilustrowany Kurier Codzienny in 1932, but not published as a book. In this article two typescripts of the novel are analyzed and compared with the printed text, taking note of all the corrections and amendments introduced by the authors. An integral supplement to this textual study is an extract from Chapter XIII ‘A Party in the Studio of the Japanese Man’ reproduced in two versions, 1) with footnotes and modernized spelling, and 2) the original text from the typescript with all annotations.