Breve nota sobre publicaciones científicas de corta extensión y que buscan golpear al lector: riesgos en una cultura de publicar (mucho y sensacional) o morir.
Bite-Size Science, False Positives, and Citation Amnesia
Chronicle of Higher Education, January 3, 2012, 1:58 pm
By Tom Bartlett
There are good things about short psychology papers. They’re easier to edit and review, not to mention less time-consuming to write. A short paper on a CV looks just as impressive as a long one. Also, a short paper is more likely to be noticed by reporters with little to no attention span—especially if the result is interestingly contrarian—and thus bring the researcher widespread acclaim and riches. Or at least a mention in some blog.
The downside is that they tend to be wrong, at least according to a short paper titled “Bite-Size Science and Its Undesired Side Effects.” That’s because, the authors write, short papers often include experiments with smaller sample sizes, which have a higher probability of false positives. They’re more likely to suffer from “citation amnesia,” that is, the omission of previous studies that might provide context. These get left out because authors are trying to keep it tight and snappy but also because “a finding is bound to sound more newsworthy when the discussion of previous relevant work is less detailed.”
The authors lay some of the blame on journal editors. From the paper:
One of the authors has received correspondence from Psychological Science saying that they hope to find manuscripts that “report new discoveries that will make our readership sit up and take notice.” These, a priori, are more likely to be false positives (Ioannidis, 2005). Flukes tend to meet this criterion by their nature (they are surprising and different from what other people tend to find). In part this is unavoidable, but what is relevant here is that bite-size articles make this problem worse. We are all aware of the need for results to be replicated. Long articles with multiple experiments show whether an effect can be replicated and supported by converging evidence.
What to do about it? The authors point out that in genetic-association studies “independent replication in the same study is now a requirement for publication in many high-quality journals.”
In the interest of citing previous relevant work, I should note that this Chris Shea article from a little while back covers some of the same territory. Also, there’s this recent piece on fast-food scholarship.
(The paper, published in the current issue of Perspectives on Psychological Science, is not online, but a press releases can be found here [ver más bajo]. The authors are Marco Bertamini of the University of Liverpool and Marcus Munafò of the University of Bristol.)

PRESS RELEASE
December 28, 2011
For Immediate Release
Contact: Lucy Hyde
Association for Psychological Science
202.293.9300
[email protected]
The perils of ‘bite-size’ science
Short, fast, and frequent: Those 21st-century demands on publication have radically changed the news, politics, and culture—for the worse, many say. Now an article in January’s Perspectives on Psychological Science, a journal published by the Association for Psychological Science, aims a critique at a similar trend in psychological research. The authors, psychologists Marco Bertamini of the University of Liverpool and Marcus Munafò of the University of Bristol, call it “bite-size science”—papers based on one or a few studies and small samples.
“We’re not against concision,” says Bertamini. “But there are real risks in this trend toward shorter papers. The main risk is the increased rates of false alarms that are likely to be associated with papers based on less data.”
The article dispatches several claimed advantages of shorter papers. Proponents say they’re easier to read. Perhaps, say the authors, but more articles mean more to keep up with, more reviewing and editing—not less work. Proponents laud the increased influence authors gain from more citations. Precisely, say the two—but two short papers do not equal twice the scientific value of a longer one. Indeed, they might add up to less.
The reason: The smaller the experimental sample the greater the statistical deviations—that is, the greater the inaccuracy of the findings. The results are sometimes flukes, with a bias toward false positives—errors a wider ranging study with multiple experiments, plus replication in the same and in other labs, could correct. Strict word limits, moreover, mean cutting the details about previous research. The new results sound not only surprising but also novel. Write the authors: “A bit of ignorance helps in discovering ‘new’ things.”
These surprising, “novel” results are exactly what editors find exciting and newsworthy and what even the best journals seek to publish, say the authors. The mainstream media pick up the “hot” stories. And the wrong results proliferate.
“Scientists are skeptics by training,” says Bertamini. But the trend toward bite-size science leaves no time or space for that crucial caution. And that, argue the authors, is antithetical to good science.
—————————-
For more information about this study, please contact: Marco Bertamini at [email protected].
Perspectives on Psychological Science is ranked among the top 10 general psychology journals for impact by the Institute for Scientific Information. It publishes an eclectic mix of thought-provoking articles on the latest important advances in psychology. For a copy of the article “Bite-size science and its undesired side effects” and access to other Perspectives on Psychological Science research findings, please contact Lucy Hyde at 202-293-9300 or [email protected].