| Autor: |
Ozonoff DM; Department of Environmental Health, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA., Grandjean P; Department of Environmental Medicine, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark. pgrand@sdu.dk.; Department of Environmental Health, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. pgrand@sdu.dk. |
| Jazyk: |
angličtina |
| Zdroj: |
Environmental health : a global access science source [Environ Health] 2020 Jan 07; Vol. 19 (1), pp. 2. Date of Electronic Publication: 2020 Jan 07. |
| DOI: |
10.1186/s12940-019-0556-5 |
| Abstrakt: |
A scientific journal like Environmental Health strives to publish research that is useful within the field covered by the journal's scope, in this case, public health. Useful research is more likely to make a difference. However, in many, if not most cases, the usefulness of an article can be difficult to ascertain until after its publication. Although replication is often thought of as a requirement for research to be considered valid, this criterion is retrospective and has resulted in a tendency toward inertia in environmental health research. An alternative viewpoint is that useful work is "stable", i.e., not likely to be soon contradicted. We present this alternative view, which still relies on science being consensual, although pointing out that it is not the same as replicability, while not in contradiction. We believe that viewing potential usefulness of research reports through the lens of stability is a valuable perspective. |
| Databáze: |
MEDLINE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
|
Nepřihlášeným uživatelům se plný text nezobrazuje |
K zobrazení výsledku je třeba se přihlásit.
|
