Average rating:	    Rated 4 of 5.
Level of importance:	    Rated 4 of 5.
Level of validity:	    Rated 4 of 5.
Level of completeness:	    Rated 4 of 5.
Level of comprehensibility:	    Rated 4 of 5.
Competing interests:	None

Reviewed article

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

On the (non) persuasive power of a brain image.

Maryanne Garry, Damian R. Michael, Catherine Newman … (2013)

The persuasive power of brain images has captivated scholars in many disciplines. Like others, we too were intrigued by the finding that a brain image makes accompanying information more credible (McCabe & Castel in Cognition 107:343-352, 2008). But when our attempts to build on this effect failed, we instead ran a series of systematic replications of the original study-comprising 10 experiments and nearly 2,000 subjects. When we combined the original data with ours in a meta-analysis, we arrived at a more precise estimate of the effect, determining that a brain image exerted little to no influence. The persistent meme of the influential brain image should be viewed with a critical eye.

0 comments Cited 32 times     Rated -3 of 5. – based on 1 reviews

(Latest)

Bookmark

Review information

DOI:: 10.14293/S2199-1006.1.SOR-CHEM.AZSCYE.v1.RSKOYM

License:

This work has been published open access under Creative Commons Attribution License CC BY 4.0, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Conditions, terms of use and publishing policy can be found at www.scienceopen.com.

ScienceOpen disciplines: Chemistry

Keywords: Biomedical Research,standards,Brain,physiology,Humans,Neuroimaging,utilization

ScienceOpen disciplines:	Chemistry
Keywords:	Biomedical Research, standards, Brain, physiology, Humans, Neuroimaging, utilization

Review text

Thank you for inviting me to review the manuscript entitled “On the (non) persuasive power of a brain image”. It was very interesting with excellent conceptualization and methodology.

Despite these strengths, there are certain issues that need the author’s attention. My observations are given below:

The title is ok.

More explanations may be added at the end of the abstract.

The introduction is good. The rationale of conducting this study needs improvement.

The method is also properly written with relevant materials and study design.

The presentation of the study results is good.

The discussion may be improved by adding more relevant explanations.

One important thing is to add some directions for future researchers.

The study finding may have a high scientific value.

With best regards,

Gyanesh Kumar Tiwari

Reviewer

Comments

Comment on this review

Version and Review History

Reviewed by Gyanesh Kumar Tiwari