JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for SPM Archives


SPM Archives

SPM Archives


SPM@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

SPM Home

SPM Home

SPM  2005

SPM 2005

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Any Papers on Presenting fMRI Results?

From:

Daniel Y Kimberg <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Daniel Y Kimberg <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 18 Feb 2005 11:44:53 -0500

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (67 lines)

Tom Johnstone wrote:
> I think perhaps it would be useful to make a distinction between
> information that is necessary for other researchers to be able to
> replicate an experiment, and information not necessarily needed for
> replication, but that a reviewer might want to see. The former would
> include all the details of the experimental design and processing
> steps that have been mentioned in this discussion, and could be made
> manditory (at least as supplemental info.).

There's a related distinction I think is also worth making, between
items that are currently routinely but not uniformly reported (e.g.,
the items in Tom Nichols's list) and items that are more rarely
reported (most of what's been posted since).

For items that are useful for replication and/or routinely reported,
these are items clearly already required by community standards, and
to a first approximation only omitted, when otherwise appropriate, by
oversight.  So the issue is mostly quality control with the writing
and review process, which I'm guessing is what Tom N. was most
concerned with.  I can see an argument for making up an informal
checklist to help authors, editors, and reviewers, although placing a
more formal administrative burden on editors or reviewers seems
potentially problematic.

The other end of this I think is a bit more of a slippery slope.  It's
certainly worth considering if as a community we should routinely
require additional types of information (e.g., design matrices,
unthresholded maps, SPMd output).  But (to agree with Tom J's comments
about demanding proof of competence), I don't think it's a good idea
for functional imaging to develop a formal "we don't trust you"
policy.  Most of the proposed new standards are along these lines:
information that would help reviewers catch mis-analyzed data or
mis-interpreted data.  As much as I share everyone's frustration at
occasionally reading articles where I have a strong suspicion the
authors have botched something or other without knowing it, or even
just omitted something they should have considered interesting, I feel
like we have to place the responsibility for this level of quality
control in the hands of reviewers and editors, even though we know the
system isn't perfect.  That's not to say I think the current de facto
set of standards is perfect, but I do think it's worth being
conservative about imposing new formal requirements.  Once you start
expressing a lack of trust, there's no limit to the number of things
you might want to double-check.  Beyond occasions when reviewers do
ask for diagnostic plots, I'd much rather see people lead by example.
If you feel readers would be better served (or better reassured) by
your including some particular figure or chunk of information, then do
so and encourage your collaborators to do so as well.  Things do
sometimes catch on that way, and at worst, if you're right, your
articles will be better than everyone else's.

I think it's worth considering, by the way, that the concept of the
information required for replication is not always clear-cut.
Everyone has their preferred level of detail.  One researcher may not
care that much what the echo time was, but might feel quite strongly
about the procedures used to color balance the stimulus display.
Another might feel a study is worthless because the source code for
the recon or the circuit diagram for the response box isn't made
available.  Formal requirements won't completely solve this problem --
it's still at some level up to editors and reviewers to decide, in
context, which features of a study are incidental.  Some proportion of
the time, those omitted details will be things you personally care
about, but others don't.

Just my two cents.

dan

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager