{"title":"为什么引用准确性在心理科学中很重要：马库斯等人（2025）的评论和对该领域的呼吁。","authors":"Cory L Cobb, Lawrence Watkins, Seth J Schwartz","doi":"10.1037/amp0001571","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Marcus et al. (2025) examined the prevalence of miscitation in amicus curiae (\"friend of the court\") briefs provided by the American Psychological Association (APA) to courts for the purpose of informing them about relevant scientific findings that may help guide decisions on legal cases. They found that 7% of citations in amicus briefs completely misrepresented prior research, and another 20% omitted key qualifiers of study findings. The purpose of the present commentary was to discuss miscitation in the context of amicus briefs, as well as in the broader context of psychological science. We argue that miscitation represents a potentially serious and questionable research practice that has implications for the field, as well as for applied extensions of psychology. Ultimately, it will be up to psychological scientists and the APA to prevent potentially harmful outcomes associated with miscitation by taking steps to ensure that prior work is accurately cited and reported. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48468,"journal":{"name":"American Psychologist","volume":"80 7","pages":"992-993"},"PeriodicalIF":12.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Why citation accuracy matters in psychological science: A commentary on Marcus et al. (2025) and call to the field.\",\"authors\":\"Cory L Cobb, Lawrence Watkins, Seth J Schwartz\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/amp0001571\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Marcus et al. (2025) examined the prevalence of miscitation in amicus curiae (\\\"friend of the court\\\") briefs provided by the American Psychological Association (APA) to courts for the purpose of informing them about relevant scientific findings that may help guide decisions on legal cases. They found that 7% of citations in amicus briefs completely misrepresented prior research, and another 20% omitted key qualifiers of study findings. The purpose of the present commentary was to discuss miscitation in the context of amicus briefs, as well as in the broader context of psychological science. We argue that miscitation represents a potentially serious and questionable research practice that has implications for the field, as well as for applied extensions of psychology. Ultimately, it will be up to psychological scientists and the APA to prevent potentially harmful outcomes associated with miscitation by taking steps to ensure that prior work is accurately cited and reported. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48468,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Psychologist\",\"volume\":\"80 7\",\"pages\":\"992-993\"},\"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/amp0001571\",\"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/amp0001571","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
Marcus等人（2025）调查了美国心理协会（APA）向法院提供的法庭之友（“法庭之友”）简报中错误引用的普遍程度，该简报的目的是告知法院相关的科学发现，这些发现可能有助于指导法律案件的裁决。他们发现，法庭之友摘要中7%的引文完全歪曲了先前的研究，另有20%省略了研究结果的关键限定词。本评注的目的是讨论在法庭之友简报的背景下以及在更广泛的心理科学背景下的错误引用。我们认为，误引代表了一种潜在的严重和可疑的研究实践，对该领域以及心理学的应用扩展都有影响。最终，心理科学家和美国心理学协会将采取措施，确保先前的工作被准确地引用和报告，以防止与误引相关的潜在有害后果。（PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA，版权所有）。
Why citation accuracy matters in psychological science: A commentary on Marcus et al. (2025) and call to the field.
Marcus et al. (2025) examined the prevalence of miscitation in amicus curiae ("friend of the court") briefs provided by the American Psychological Association (APA) to courts for the purpose of informing them about relevant scientific findings that may help guide decisions on legal cases. They found that 7% of citations in amicus briefs completely misrepresented prior research, and another 20% omitted key qualifiers of study findings. The purpose of the present commentary was to discuss miscitation in the context of amicus briefs, as well as in the broader context of psychological science. We argue that miscitation represents a potentially serious and questionable research practice that has implications for the field, as well as for applied extensions of psychology. Ultimately, it will be up to psychological scientists and the APA to prevent potentially harmful outcomes associated with miscitation by taking steps to ensure that prior work is accurately cited and reported. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 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.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
