25
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      New Issues for New Methods: Ethical and Editorial Challenges for an Experimental Philosophy

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          This paper examines a constellation of ethical and editorial issues that have arisen since philosophers started to conduct, submit and publish empirical research. These issues encompass concerns over responsible authorship, fair treatment of human subjects, ethicality of experimental procedures, availability of data, unselective reporting and publishability of research findings. This study aims to assess whether the philosophical community has as yet successfully addressed such issues. To do so, the instructions for authors, submission process and published research papers of 29 main journals in philosophy have been considered and analyzed. In light of the evidence reported here, it is argued that the philosophical community has as yet failed to properly tackle such issues. The paper also delivers some recommendations for authors, reviewers and editors in the field.

          Related collections

          Most cited references75

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Cognitive load selectively interferes with utilitarian moral judgment.

          Traditional theories of moral development emphasize the role of controlled cognition in mature moral judgment, while a more recent trend emphasizes intuitive and emotional processes. Here we test a dual-process theory synthesizing these perspectives. More specifically, our theory associates utilitarian moral judgment (approving of harmful actions that maximize good consequences) with controlled cognitive processes and associates non-utilitarian moral judgment with automatic emotional responses. Consistent with this theory, we find that a cognitive load manipulation selectively interferes with utilitarian judgment. This interference effect provides direct evidence for the influence of controlled cognitive processes in moral judgment, and utilitarian moral judgment more specifically.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            The Trolley Problem

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Publication and other reporting biases in cognitive sciences: detection, prevalence, and prevention.

              Recent systematic reviews and empirical evaluations of the cognitive sciences literature suggest that publication and other reporting biases are prevalent across diverse domains of cognitive science. In this review, we summarize the various forms of publication and reporting biases and other questionable research practices, and overview the available methods for probing into their existence. We discuss the available empirical evidence for the presence of such biases across the neuroimaging, animal, other preclinical, psychological, clinical trials, and genetics literature in the cognitive sciences. We also highlight emerging solutions (from study design to data analyses and reporting) to prevent bias and improve the fidelity in the field of cognitive science research. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                a.polonioli@bham.ac.uk , andrea_polonioli@hotmail.com , http://www.andreapolonioli.com
                Journal
                Sci Eng Ethics
                Sci Eng Ethics
                Science and Engineering Ethics
                Springer Netherlands (Dordrecht )
                1353-3452
                1471-5546
                28 November 2016
                28 November 2016
                2017
                : 23
                : 4
                : 1009-1034
                Affiliations
                ISNI 0000 0004 1936 7486, GRID grid.6572.6, Department of Philosophy, , University of Birmingham, ; 3 Elms Road, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT UK
                Article
                9838
                10.1007/s11948-016-9838-2
                5539259
                27896613
                72d1ba94-0089-43b0-9f17-40981ada419c
                © The Author(s) 2016

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

                History
                : 22 June 2016
                : 21 October 2016
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000781, European Research Council;
                Award ID: 616358
                Categories
                Original Paper
                Custom metadata
                © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

                Ethics
                experimental philosophy,ethics,research integrity,journals,authorship,reproducibility,data availability

                Comments

                Comment on this article