Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Five commandments for APA.

Nora S Newcombe1

  • 1Department of Psychology, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA 19122, USA. newcombe@astro.temple.edu

The American Psychologist
|March 22, 2002
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Upholding scientific integrity in publishing requires adhering to five core rules, even amidst political challenges. These principles ensure objective evaluation and resist external pressures for credible research dissemination.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

The role of narrative structure in scaffolding children's recall.

Journal of cognition and development : official journal of the Cognitive Development Society·2026
Same author

Early informal fraction knowledge matters: a longitudinal investigation between first and second grades.

Journal of experimental child psychology·2026
Same author

Spatial perspective taking is distinct from cognitive and affective perspective taking.

Journal of experimental psychology. General·2026
Same author

The component structure of memory during development.

Developmental psychology·2025
Same author

The dependence of children's generalization on episodic memory varies with age and level of abstraction.

Nature communications·2025
Same author

Autobiographical memory in children: relation to neural white matter.

Memory (Hove, England)·2025
Same journal

Cumulative adverse childhood experiences and parent-reported allergic conditions and asthma among U.S. children: A nationally representative study.

The American psychologist·2026
Same journal

Natural disaster, social cohesion, and prosociality: A natural experiment.

The American psychologist·2026
Same journal

Practice guidelines regarding psychologists' involvement in pharmacological issues.

The American psychologist·2026
Same journal

International Competences for Undergraduate Psychology (ICUP): A constructive shift for psychology?

The American psychologist·2026
Same journal

Two dimensions of access: Availability and affordability of mental health care across the United States.

The American psychologist·2026
Same journal

Revisiting secondary antisemitism: Antisemitism as a cause, not a consequence, of ingroup-serving Holocaust distortions.

The American psychologist·2026
See all related articles

Area of Science:

  • Scientific publishing
  • Research integrity
  • Peer review

Background:

  • Scientific publishing faces increasing political pressures.
  • Maintaining objectivity in scientific review is crucial.
  • Existing norms of scientific publishing require reinforcement.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To delineate five fundamental rules for scientific review and publishing.
  • To advocate for the consistent application of these rules, regardless of political difficulty.
  • To reinforce the importance of evidence-based assessment in scientific discourse.

Main Methods:

  • The study outlines five key principles for scientific publishing.
  • It emphasizes the importance of adhering to established norms.
  • The author argues for resisting politically motivated judgments.

Related Experiment Videos

Main Results:

  • Five rules for scientific review and publishing are presented.
  • The necessity of upholding these rules, even under political duress, is argued.
  • Resistance to judging scientific articles based on political concerns is advocated.

Conclusions:

  • Scientific articles must be evaluated solely on logic and evidence.
  • Competent peer review outcomes should be respected.
  • Disagreements should be addressed through peer-reviewed commentary, not political interference.
  • Arbitrary alteration of peer review rules must be prevented to maintain scientific standards.