美国心理学会法庭之友简报引文准确性。

IF 12.3 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
David K Marcus, Paul S Strand, Talia Y Leman, Keira L Monaghan, Mackenzie B Murphy, Christopher T Barry
{"title":"美国心理学会法庭之友简报引文准确性。","authors":"David K Marcus, Paul S Strand, Talia Y Leman, Keira L Monaghan, Mackenzie B Murphy, Christopher T Barry","doi":"10.1037/amp0001543","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>For over 60 years, the American Psychological Association (APA) has submitted amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs with the aim of informing the courts about relevant scientific findings that may otherwise be absent from, or misrepresented in, the trial records of court cases. To achieve this aim, it is important that the summarized information accurately reflects the relevant scientific literature. The present study investigated the accuracy of the citations to empirical research in the 16 most recent APA amicus briefs by comparing the accuracy of the citing claims within these briefs to the original claims made in the cited articles. Case topics included false confessions, affirmative action, eyewitness testimony, child welfare, child custody, abortion, gender-affirming care, and sexual orientation change efforts. These briefs yielded 507 citations to empirical studies that were coded by pairs of independent coders. Results indicated that 72.8% of citations were accurate, 20.3% were somewhat accurate, and 6.9% were inaccurate. APA amicus briefs have been cited in a number of landmark rulings and have the potential to enhance the public welfare and the reputation of psychological science. It is, however, imperative that APA works to minimize miscitations in these briefs. We offer a set of recommendations for ways to reduce the number of miscitations in APA amicus briefs. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48468,"journal":{"name":"American Psychologist","volume":"80 7","pages":"979-991"},"PeriodicalIF":12.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Citation accuracy in American Psychological Association amicus curiae briefs.\",\"authors\":\"David K Marcus, Paul S Strand, Talia Y Leman, Keira L Monaghan, Mackenzie B Murphy, Christopher T Barry\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/amp0001543\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>For over 60 years, the American Psychological Association (APA) has submitted amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs with the aim of informing the courts about relevant scientific findings that may otherwise be absent from, or misrepresented in, the trial records of court cases. To achieve this aim, it is important that the summarized information accurately reflects the relevant scientific literature. The present study investigated the accuracy of the citations to empirical research in the 16 most recent APA amicus briefs by comparing the accuracy of the citing claims within these briefs to the original claims made in the cited articles. Case topics included false confessions, affirmative action, eyewitness testimony, child welfare, child custody, abortion, gender-affirming care, and sexual orientation change efforts. These briefs yielded 507 citations to empirical studies that were coded by pairs of independent coders. Results indicated that 72.8% of citations were accurate, 20.3% were somewhat accurate, and 6.9% were inaccurate. APA amicus briefs have been cited in a number of landmark rulings and have the potential to enhance the public welfare and the reputation of psychological science. It is, however, imperative that APA works to minimize miscitations in these briefs. We offer a set of recommendations for ways to reduce the number of miscitations in APA amicus briefs. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48468,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Psychologist\",\"volume\":\"80 7\",\"pages\":\"979-991\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":12.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-01\",\"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/amp0001543\",\"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/amp0001543","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

60多年来,美国心理协会(APA)一直在提交法庭之友(amicus curae)简报,目的是向法院通报相关的科学发现,否则这些发现可能在法庭案件的审判记录中缺失或被歪曲。为了实现这一目标,重要的是总结的信息准确地反映了相关的科学文献。本研究通过比较这些摘要中引用主张与被引文章中原始主张的准确性,调查了最近16份APA法庭之友摘要中引用实证研究的准确性。案例主题包括虚假供词、平权行动、目击者证词、儿童福利、儿童监护、堕胎、性别确认护理和性取向改变努力。这些简报产生了507个由独立编码员编码的实证研究引用。结果表明,72.8%的引文准确,20.3%的引文较准确,6.9%的引文不准确。美国心理学会的法庭之友摘要在许多具有里程碑意义的裁决中被引用,并有可能提高公众福利和心理科学的声誉。然而,APA必须努力减少这些摘要中的误解。我们提供了一套建议,以减少APA法庭之友简报中误解的数量。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Citation accuracy in American Psychological Association amicus curiae briefs.

For over 60 years, the American Psychological Association (APA) has submitted amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs with the aim of informing the courts about relevant scientific findings that may otherwise be absent from, or misrepresented in, the trial records of court cases. To achieve this aim, it is important that the summarized information accurately reflects the relevant scientific literature. The present study investigated the accuracy of the citations to empirical research in the 16 most recent APA amicus briefs by comparing the accuracy of the citing claims within these briefs to the original claims made in the cited articles. Case topics included false confessions, affirmative action, eyewitness testimony, child welfare, child custody, abortion, gender-affirming care, and sexual orientation change efforts. These briefs yielded 507 citations to empirical studies that were coded by pairs of independent coders. Results indicated that 72.8% of citations were accurate, 20.3% were somewhat accurate, and 6.9% were inaccurate. APA amicus briefs have been cited in a number of landmark rulings and have the potential to enhance the public welfare and the reputation of psychological science. It is, however, imperative that APA works to minimize miscitations in these briefs. We offer a set of recommendations for ways to reduce the number of miscitations in APA amicus briefs. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
American Psychologist
American Psychologist PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
18.50
自引率
1.20%
发文量
145
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信