Guide to making claims based on research
ana3067
Posts: 5,623 Member
If you'd like to make a claim based on research, then the following should be done:
1) Do not make causal attributions, i.e. do not say "because people didn't eat donuts, their cancer rates are lower" unless the articles you are referencing are actually making this exact claim.
2) Do not base your judgments and arguments off of a popular media's summary of a research article. Pull the actual article.
3) When pulling the actual article, read the actual article. If you are a student or work at a university this will obviously be much easier. Otherwise, look for free-access journals such as PLoS ONE.
4) When making a claim, please provide a reference. Include article title, journal information (title, volume and issue number, page numbers), and authors if you can.
5) Ensure your article is an actual scholarly article. If there are no references to other articles, or there aren't any references at all, then this is likely not a good article to reference.
Edit: JaneiR36, posting examples
Examples of some good scholarly articles (references to other scholarly articles, posting info such as limitations and future direction, published by an actual journal)
plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0111081
plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0111629
plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0108359
Examples of poor articles to reference:
https://google.ca/search?q=cancer+sugar&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=fflb&gfe_rd=cr&ei=NilyVL6jK8XB8gfqg4D4BQ (i.e. just a google search)
nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 (no references at all, other than linking to a YT video)
macleans.ca/general/on-the-evils-of-wheat-why-it-is-so-addictive-and-how-shunning-it-will-make-you-skinny/
drleonardcoldwell.com/2013/11/01/stage-4-cancer-gone-with-baking-soda-treatment/comment-page-1/
6) If someone refutes your argument by posting links or citations to contrary evidence, please supply your own links or citations to the specific articles as opposed to linking to a Google search, e.g. do not link your "cancer sugar" Google search as being evidence.
7) Please try to pull a number of articles pertaining to the same phenomenon. If you can, try and see if there are any published null findings on the topic. Pulling multiple articles, especially if they are performed on large sample sizes and are using different analyses/techniques to come to the same conclusion, provides more confidence in the validity of the claim you are making.
8) Remember that just because an article makes some type of claim, does not mean the claim is proof of something. It is simply providing supportive evidence for a phenomenon. No findings can be labeled as being proof or as being 100% factual truth. Scientific methods change over time, which means that today's findings might be refuted in 100 years.
Edit:
9) kgeyser: "Be honest about the limitations of the research and its implications when posting a study. Too often we see studies posted here with a small sample size, poor methodology, or a sample whose results cannot be translated to the general population (i.e. effects of certain interventions on diabetics, obese populations, rats). If the study was published, obviously someone thought the research was significant, but the discussion should be limited to the scope of the research with consideration given to the limitations. "
My own addition -- posting links to animal studies, however, is definitely fine to do. Just be sure you are not then generalizing this to humans! if results cannot be found in animal participants then it's not likely that research will be carried out on humans. Animals are used first for ethical reasons, and we do share a number of physiological similarities. Or at the least, things that occur with humans can often be studied in animals. Even when findings are discovered in animals, it doesn't always translate to human populations. Small sample sizes are also not great unless many other studies have replicated the findings or show similar results, but if you are referencing a small sample size used to study a rare or less common condition, there is greater validity in the findings. But again, just be cautious of limitations!
10) try to find more recent articles as well. Especially in the field of science (which is likely where most of you should be referencing from), using more up-to-date information is important. A good rule of thumb would be to try staying within the last 30 years of research.
Edit:
11 from QueenBishOTUniverse:
"and it's ok to admit you're NOT an expert, but if that's the case, maybe read more from people who ARE able to post relevant sources and refer to them in a reliable manner instead of arguing with them incessantly while making it more and more apparent you actually have not a clue what you're talking about"
Feel free to share your own tips and tricks to making research-based claims!
And here are a few links referencing some open-access journals. I've only ever used PLoS ONE as an open-access journal so I cannot attest to the others linked, but give them a go! And you can also search through Google Scholar, not all articles are open-access though. Just ensure that there is a reputable journal in the article header, otherwise it's not a proper source
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_open-access_journals
elsevier.com/about/open-access/open-access-journals
sciencedirect.com/science/jrnlallbooks/all/open-access
1) Do not make causal attributions, i.e. do not say "because people didn't eat donuts, their cancer rates are lower" unless the articles you are referencing are actually making this exact claim.
2) Do not base your judgments and arguments off of a popular media's summary of a research article. Pull the actual article.
3) When pulling the actual article, read the actual article. If you are a student or work at a university this will obviously be much easier. Otherwise, look for free-access journals such as PLoS ONE.
4) When making a claim, please provide a reference. Include article title, journal information (title, volume and issue number, page numbers), and authors if you can.
5) Ensure your article is an actual scholarly article. If there are no references to other articles, or there aren't any references at all, then this is likely not a good article to reference.
Edit: JaneiR36, posting examples
Examples of some good scholarly articles (references to other scholarly articles, posting info such as limitations and future direction, published by an actual journal)
plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0111081
plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0111629
plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0108359
Examples of poor articles to reference:
https://google.ca/search?q=cancer+sugar&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=fflb&gfe_rd=cr&ei=NilyVL6jK8XB8gfqg4D4BQ (i.e. just a google search)
nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 (no references at all, other than linking to a YT video)
macleans.ca/general/on-the-evils-of-wheat-why-it-is-so-addictive-and-how-shunning-it-will-make-you-skinny/
drleonardcoldwell.com/2013/11/01/stage-4-cancer-gone-with-baking-soda-treatment/comment-page-1/
6) If someone refutes your argument by posting links or citations to contrary evidence, please supply your own links or citations to the specific articles as opposed to linking to a Google search, e.g. do not link your "cancer sugar" Google search as being evidence.
7) Please try to pull a number of articles pertaining to the same phenomenon. If you can, try and see if there are any published null findings on the topic. Pulling multiple articles, especially if they are performed on large sample sizes and are using different analyses/techniques to come to the same conclusion, provides more confidence in the validity of the claim you are making.
8) Remember that just because an article makes some type of claim, does not mean the claim is proof of something. It is simply providing supportive evidence for a phenomenon. No findings can be labeled as being proof or as being 100% factual truth. Scientific methods change over time, which means that today's findings might be refuted in 100 years.
Edit:
9) kgeyser: "Be honest about the limitations of the research and its implications when posting a study. Too often we see studies posted here with a small sample size, poor methodology, or a sample whose results cannot be translated to the general population (i.e. effects of certain interventions on diabetics, obese populations, rats). If the study was published, obviously someone thought the research was significant, but the discussion should be limited to the scope of the research with consideration given to the limitations. "
My own addition -- posting links to animal studies, however, is definitely fine to do. Just be sure you are not then generalizing this to humans! if results cannot be found in animal participants then it's not likely that research will be carried out on humans. Animals are used first for ethical reasons, and we do share a number of physiological similarities. Or at the least, things that occur with humans can often be studied in animals. Even when findings are discovered in animals, it doesn't always translate to human populations. Small sample sizes are also not great unless many other studies have replicated the findings or show similar results, but if you are referencing a small sample size used to study a rare or less common condition, there is greater validity in the findings. But again, just be cautious of limitations!
10) try to find more recent articles as well. Especially in the field of science (which is likely where most of you should be referencing from), using more up-to-date information is important. A good rule of thumb would be to try staying within the last 30 years of research.
Edit:
11 from QueenBishOTUniverse:
"and it's ok to admit you're NOT an expert, but if that's the case, maybe read more from people who ARE able to post relevant sources and refer to them in a reliable manner instead of arguing with them incessantly while making it more and more apparent you actually have not a clue what you're talking about"
Feel free to share your own tips and tricks to making research-based claims!
And here are a few links referencing some open-access journals. I've only ever used PLoS ONE as an open-access journal so I cannot attest to the others linked, but give them a go! And you can also search through Google Scholar, not all articles are open-access though. Just ensure that there is a reputable journal in the article header, otherwise it's not a proper source
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_open-access_journals
elsevier.com/about/open-access/open-access-journals
sciencedirect.com/science/jrnlallbooks/all/open-access
-4
Replies
-
This content has been removed.
-
Remember that correlation does not imply causation! (It's probably my favorite research saying.)0
-
-
But as we know from a previous thread, water in soup does kill your thyroid.0 -
But as we know from a previous thread, water in soup does kill your thyroid.
Ah yes, almost forgot lol
0 -
I think 5) could stand to be expanded on. The casual thread participant who suddenly finds themselves in a debate may not know what's considered a scholarly article or not. Perhaps examples of what would be considered valid or not valid sources?0
-
But as we know from a previous thread, water in soup does kill your thyroid.
Did we ever figure out what baking soda does?
0 -
Be honest about the limitations of the research and its implications when posting a study.
Too often we see studies posted here with a small sample size, poor methodology, or a sample whose results cannot be translated to the general population (i.e. effects of certain interventions on diabetics, obese populations, rats). If the study was published, obviously someone thought the research was significant, but the discussion should be limited to the scope of the research with consideration given to the limitations.0 -
A post like this has been sorely needed. Thanks.0
-
Thank you! This is like PSYCH100 (intro psych) all over again.
Unless it is an experimental study where all variables are tightly controlled except for the independent variable, then NO CAUSAL CLAIM CANNOT BE MADE!!! A correlational study cannot make a causal claim, because there are directionality and third variable concerns.0 -
Some good additions/comments guys! I edited to add two of the suggestions here.0
-
Cures cancer
But as we know from a previous thread, water in soup does kill your thyroid.
Did we ever figure out what baking soda does?
drleonardcoldwell.com/2013/11/01/stage-4-cancer-gone-with-baking-soda-treatment/comment-page-1/
trololol0 -
I think 5) could stand to be expanded on. The casual thread participant who suddenly finds themselves in a debate may not know what's considered a scholarly article or not. Perhaps examples of what would be considered valid or not valid sources?
My personal rule: if I cannot tell if a source is reliable/valid or not, it means that my knowledge in that particular field (nutrition, economy, American law, etc.) is extremely limited .... Probably too limited to use "raw material" like primary sources or highly-speciliazed literature, such as science essays written by researchers for the benefit of their peers.
In such case, instead of using "primary sources", I will refer to secondary sources. For example, basic textbooks of college or undergraduate programs are accessible and contain mostly "generally accepted" principles with a reference to more controversial ideas/trends.)
0 -
Isabelle_1929 wrote: »I think 5) could stand to be expanded on. The casual thread participant who suddenly finds themselves in a debate may not know what's considered a scholarly article or not. Perhaps examples of what would be considered valid or not valid sources?
My personal rule: if I cannot tell if the source is reliable or not, it means that my knowledge in that particular field (nutrition, economy, American law, etc.) is extremely limited.
I such case, instead of using "primary sources", I will refer to secondary sources. For example, basic textbooks used in undergraduate programs are typically not bad and contain mostly "generally accepted" principles with a reference to more controversial ideas/trends.)
Referring to secondary sources is totally fine as well, and I will say that if you find lecture notes online in which the professor has cited his/her notes well, this can be used as well. Generally speaking university textbooks reference proper scholarly articles, either because they are summarizing the research in examples or because the research is used in defining concepts. For lay people, if a textbook can be found online or in a library and is up-to-date (e.g. don't be referencing a textbook from 1960!) then it's worth checking out. I mean, textbooks get reviewed as well and they use a LOT of references.
The key is that any source you do reference needs to have plenty of good primary sources linked in its reference section. If a blog links other blogs, no good. If it links published articles, maybe a textbook, then it'd be worth linking if the primary sources cannot be accessed. In this case though I'd make ti a point to say that you've only read the article's summary of these other sources.0 -
I think 5) could stand to be expanded on. The casual thread participant who suddenly finds themselves in a debate may not know what's considered a scholarly article or not. Perhaps examples of what would be considered valid or not valid sources?
Most of the databases I have used for research papers (where all of my sources must be from scholarly articles) have an option through advance search that filters out articles that are not peer-reviewed. All scholarly articles have to go through the peer review process.0 -
Isabelle_1929 wrote: »I think 5) could stand to be expanded on. The casual thread participant who suddenly finds themselves in a debate may not know what's considered a scholarly article or not. Perhaps examples of what would be considered valid or not valid sources?
My personal rule: if I cannot tell if a source is reliable/valid or not, it means that my knowledge in that particular field (nutrition, economy, American law, etc.) is extremely limited .... Probably too limited to use "raw material" like primary sources or highly-speciliazed literature, such as science essays written by researchers for the benefit of their peers.
In such case, instead of using "primary sources", I will refer to secondary sources. For example, basic textbooks of college or undergraduate programs are accessible and contain mostly "generally accepted" principles with a reference to more controversial ideas/trends.)
Can we add something along the lines of "and it's ok to admit you're NOT an expert, but if that's the case, maybe read more from people who ARE able to post relevant sources and refer to them in a reliable manner instead of arguing with them incessantly while making it more and more apparent you actually have not a clue what you're talking about"
Um sorry, I *may* have gotten a *little* ranty there.....0 -
QueenBishOTUniverse wrote: »Isabelle_1929 wrote: »I think 5) could stand to be expanded on. The casual thread participant who suddenly finds themselves in a debate may not know what's considered a scholarly article or not. Perhaps examples of what would be considered valid or not valid sources?
My personal rule: if I cannot tell if a source is reliable/valid or not, it means that my knowledge in that particular field (nutrition, economy, American law, etc.) is extremely limited .... Probably too limited to use "raw material" like primary sources or highly-speciliazed literature, such as science essays written by researchers for the benefit of their peers.
In such case, instead of using "primary sources", I will refer to secondary sources. For example, basic textbooks of college or undergraduate programs are accessible and contain mostly "generally accepted" principles with a reference to more controversial ideas/trends.)
Can we add something along the lines of "and it's ok to admit you're NOT an expert, but if that's the case, maybe read more from people who ARE able to post relevant sources and refer to them in a reliable manner instead of arguing with them incessantly while making it more and more apparent you actually have not a clue what you're talking about"
Um sorry, I *may* have gotten a *little* ranty there.....
Lol, sure0 -
So I can no longer edit my OP, if you have any other additions you think are important to make then I suggest bolding it in some way. e.g. "Addition # so that other people have an easier time spotting it!0
-
-
you can't make me do all those things. BUT...I do wish people would at least consider doing them before they post about the newest cure for cancer.0
-
0
-
I like this post...a lot.
One thing to throw out there is anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence (and I do not mean n=1) can be useful depending on the context and if you are clear that it is just that. It can add to a body of evidence, but usually not stand on its own.
This a a good video from Eric Helms that uses an example that cautions people on the use of studies (or more accurately, the interpretation and application):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYq8OzoMSFo
0 -
xmichaelyx wrote: »
Which I apparently lack
community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/30409651/#Comment_304096510 -
Thanks for the link!I like this post...a lot.
One thing to throw out there is anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence (and I do not mean n=1) can be useful depending on the context and if you are clear that it is just that. It can add to a body of evidence, but usually not stand on its own.
This a a good video from Eric Helms that uses an example that cautions people on the use of studies (or more accurately, the interpretation and application):
https://youtube.com/watch?v=EYq8OzoMSFo
Made it clickable though - seems that posting videos isn't working now
0 -
Thanks for the link!I like this post...a lot.
One thing to throw out there is anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence (and I do not mean n=1) can be useful depending on the context and if you are clear that it is just that. It can add to a body of evidence, but usually not stand on its own.
This a a good video from Eric Helms that uses an example that cautions people on the use of studies (or more accurately, the interpretation and application):
Made it clickable though - seems that posting videos isn't working now
Oh oh oh, I got this!
0 -
nice! Are you just using the same code? that [ youtube ] [/ youtube ] thing? I tried that abvoe and it didn't work0
-
xmichaelyx wrote: »
Which I apparently lack
community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/30409651/#Comment_30409651
I teach it at a college. Based on your comments in that thread and others, you could stand a course in it, I'm sorry. Your tips above aren't bad but this is a forum for discussion, not a PhD defense. When someone posts that they've read studies that say X, they don't need to supply those links or be considered proven wrong. Some of us read a lot.
0 -
-
UGH, right. I totally forgot about that. Thanks!QueenBishOTUniverse wrote: »
0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »xmichaelyx wrote: »
Which I apparently lack
community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/30409651/#Comment_30409651
I teach it at a college. Based on your comments in that thread and others, you could stand a course in it, I'm sorry. Your tips above aren't bad but this is a forum for discussion, not a PhD defense. When someone posts that they've read studies that say X, they don't need to supply those links or be considered proven wrong. Some of us read a lot.
Actually, if they want their assertion to be considered valid, YES they do need to provide evidence to back their claim. It's the interwebz and anybody can make "claims" of expertise. Unless they're willing to back those claims with evidence, they will be placed firmly in the *doesn't actually know what they're talking about but wants to look smart* category. Because good science doesn't work on faith.
And LOL, at some of us read a lot, as if no body else could have possibly read anything (or taught at a university for that matter)0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions