Changes in the process used to critique articles based on Psychophysiologically Based Research Studies

Large numbers of audits have shown that we are inundated with faked studies, poorly done studies, improperly massaged data, sales pitches, etc. Few of the major studies can be replicated, and many journals still refuse to publish replications – especially if they don't support the original study's results. Thus, the way we need to critique studies has shifted from a relatively straightforward evaluation of the study to a detective process, including evaluating the author(s) and the journal in which the study appeared. This set of criteria is only applicable to research studies using human or non-human subjects. Studies appropriate for applying the following criteria can be from any area within psychophysiology, including clinical, sports, education, military, etc. It is not for theoretical articles, thinly veiled sales pitches, etc. The critique process is active and generally involves more than reading an article then accepting its conclusions at face value: The person critiquing a research article needs to gain some perspective on the area the article discusses, the authors' qualifications and experience (are they sales folk selling something, etc.), the literature the authors included in their review as opposed to what is published, etc. It is also likely that the critiquer will be checking the statistics and other crucial portions of the article by using statistical software.