促进学者之间的辩论，以支持食品相关消费者研究的知识进步:评论

Q2 Social Sciences

Economia Agro-Alimentare Pub Date : 2022-10-01 DOI:10.3280/ecag2022oa13657

R. Vecchio

{"title":"促进学者之间的辩论，以支持食品相关消费者研究的知识进步:评论","authors":"R. Vecchio","doi":"10.3280/ecag2022oa13657","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this commentary, I aim to highlight some issues currently challenging the advancement of knowledge in the food-related consumer research academic community. Retracing the sections of a research paper, several strategic writing practices authors use to please reviewers are outlined together with customary referee comments considerably popular nowadays (as paper originality; sample size and external validity; and risk of bias). These odds in the current publishing and reviewing practices, which are also under transition and in an ongoing shift, need thorough discussion among the academic community. The overall goal of the commentary is to foster debate and reflection among editors and scholars to better define the possible boundaries of good contributions to knowledge and the precise guidelines to prevent (potentially) detrimental practices on both sides.","PeriodicalId":37333,"journal":{"name":"Economia Agro-Alimentare","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Fostering the debate among scholars to support the advancement of knowledge in the food-related consumer research: A commentary\",\"authors\":\"R. Vecchio\",\"doi\":\"10.3280/ecag2022oa13657\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this commentary, I aim to highlight some issues currently challenging the advancement of knowledge in the food-related consumer research academic community. Retracing the sections of a research paper, several strategic writing practices authors use to please reviewers are outlined together with customary referee comments considerably popular nowadays (as paper originality; sample size and external validity; and risk of bias). These odds in the current publishing and reviewing practices, which are also under transition and in an ongoing shift, need thorough discussion among the academic community. The overall goal of the commentary is to foster debate and reflection among editors and scholars to better define the possible boundaries of good contributions to knowledge and the precise guidelines to prevent (potentially) detrimental practices on both sides.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37333,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Economia Agro-Alimentare\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Economia Agro-Alimentare\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3280/ecag2022oa13657\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Economia Agro-Alimentare","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3280/ecag2022oa13657","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

在这篇评论中，我的目的是强调目前在食品相关消费者研究学术界知识进步的一些问题。追溯一篇研究论文的各个部分，作者用来取悦审稿人的几个策略写作实践被概述，以及当今相当流行的习惯审稿人评论(如论文独创性;样本量与外部效度;以及偏见风险)。在当前的出版和评审实践中，这些可能性也处于过渡和持续的转变中，需要学术界进行彻底的讨论。评注的总体目标是促进编辑和学者之间的辩论和反思，以更好地界定对知识做出良好贡献的可能界限，并制定准确的指导方针，以防止双方(潜在的)有害做法。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Fostering the debate among scholars to support the advancement of knowledge in the food-related consumer research: A commentary

In this commentary, I aim to highlight some issues currently challenging the advancement of knowledge in the food-related consumer research academic community. Retracing the sections of a research paper, several strategic writing practices authors use to please reviewers are outlined together with customary referee comments considerably popular nowadays (as paper originality; sample size and external validity; and risk of bias). These odds in the current publishing and reviewing practices, which are also under transition and in an ongoing shift, need thorough discussion among the academic community. The overall goal of the commentary is to foster debate and reflection among editors and scholars to better define the possible boundaries of good contributions to knowledge and the precise guidelines to prevent (potentially) detrimental practices on both sides.

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

Economia Agro-Alimentare Social Sciences-Social Sciences (miscellaneous)

CiteScore

1.40

自引率

0.00%

发文量

审稿时长

30 weeks

期刊介绍： Economia agro-alimentare/Food Economy is a triannual peer-reviewed scientific journal published by Franco Angeli Edizioni on behalf of the Italian Society of Agri-food Economics (SIEA), founded in 1996 by the then President of SIEA Fausto Cantarelli. It offers an international forum for the discussion and analysis of mono and interdisciplinary socio-economic, political, legal and technical issues, related to agricultural and food systems. It welcomes submissions of original papers focusing on agriculture, food, natural resources, safety, nutrition and health, including all processes and infrastructure involved in providing food to populations; as well as the processes, inputs and outputs involved in consumption and disposal of food and food-related items. Analyses also include social, political, economic and environmental contexts and human resource challenges. Submissions should be addressed to an international audience of researchers, practitioners, and policy makers, and they may consider local, national, or global scales.