{"title":"非殖民化的科学需要更大、更大胆、更少渐进式的变革:对 Sharpe (2024) 的评论。","authors":"Idia Binitie Thurston, Masi Noor","doi":"10.1037/amp0001294","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This commentary is written in response to Sharpe's (2024) article titled \"Editor Bias and Transparency in Psychology's Open Science Era.\" The article clearly describes the conversation on bias, transparency, and editor accountability occurring in the field of psychology in recent years. However, in this era of public accountability, where there is a groundswell seeking a more decolonized science, we use the commentary to discuss how the article could have gone further. We used an equity model to explore whether the model of change being proposed by Sharpe is at the right level of analysis and whether it is equipped with the needed ingredients to bring about a solution to the long-standing problem of editor bias and lack of transparency. We offer an alternative to the individual model that Sharpe's article puts forth and recommend the use of a systems thinking approach to generate action items for a more decolonized science in the realm of publishing and editor bias. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48468,"journal":{"name":"American Psychologist","volume":"79 7","pages":"898-900"},"PeriodicalIF":12.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A decolonized science requires bigger, bolder, and less incremental change: Commentary on Sharpe (2024).\",\"authors\":\"Idia Binitie Thurston, Masi Noor\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/amp0001294\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This commentary is written in response to Sharpe's (2024) article titled \\\"Editor Bias and Transparency in Psychology's Open Science Era.\\\" The article clearly describes the conversation on bias, transparency, and editor accountability occurring in the field of psychology in recent years. However, in this era of public accountability, where there is a groundswell seeking a more decolonized science, we use the commentary to discuss how the article could have gone further. We used an equity model to explore whether the model of change being proposed by Sharpe is at the right level of analysis and whether it is equipped with the needed ingredients to bring about a solution to the long-standing problem of editor bias and lack of transparency. We offer an alternative to the individual model that Sharpe's article puts forth and recommend the use of a systems thinking approach to generate action items for a more decolonized science in the realm of publishing and editor bias. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48468,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Psychologist\",\"volume\":\"79 7\",\"pages\":\"898-900\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":12.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Psychologist\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001294\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Psychologist","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001294","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
这篇评论是针对夏普(Sharpe,2024 年)题为 "心理学开放科学时代的编辑偏见与透明度 "的文章而写的。这篇文章清楚地描述了近年来心理学领域发生的关于偏见、透明度和编辑问责制的对话。然而,在这个公众问责的时代,有一股寻求更非殖民化科学的浪潮,我们通过评论来讨论这篇文章本可以如何走得更远。我们使用了一个公平模型来探讨夏普提出的变革模式是否达到了正确的分析水平,是否具备了解决长期存在的编辑偏见和缺乏透明度问题所需的要素。除了夏普文章中提出的个人模式之外,我们还提供了另一种选择,并建议使用系统思维方法来生成行动项目,以便在出版和编辑偏见领域实现更加非殖民化的科学。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA,保留所有权利)。
A decolonized science requires bigger, bolder, and less incremental change: Commentary on Sharpe (2024).
This commentary is written in response to Sharpe's (2024) article titled "Editor Bias and Transparency in Psychology's Open Science Era." The article clearly describes the conversation on bias, transparency, and editor accountability occurring in the field of psychology in recent years. However, in this era of public accountability, where there is a groundswell seeking a more decolonized science, we use the commentary to discuss how the article could have gone further. We used an equity model to explore whether the model of change being proposed by Sharpe is at the right level of analysis and whether it is equipped with the needed ingredients to bring about a solution to the long-standing problem of editor bias and lack of transparency. We offer an alternative to the individual model that Sharpe's article puts forth and recommend the use of a systems thinking approach to generate action items for a more decolonized science in the realm of publishing and editor bias. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
期刊介绍:
Established in 1946, American Psychologist® is the flagship peer-reviewed scholarly journal of the American Psychological Association. It publishes high-impact papers of broad interest, including empirical reports, meta-analyses, and scholarly reviews, covering psychological science, practice, education, and policy. Articles often address issues of national and international significance within the field of psychology and its relationship to society. Published in an accessible style, contributions in American Psychologist are designed to be understood by both psychologists and the general public.