30

I've just finished my under-graduation in psychology in my country and I'm very motivated to start publishing and making my own experiments. Following this answer: Does one need to be affiliated with a university to publish papers?, I've discovered that I can publish papers without institutional affiliation. Is it the same with experiments?
How can I prove that my experiments were rigorously conducted and that I'm not faking documents or participants? how can I show that I didn't induce some answers to the participants to prove a given hypothesis?
If I can publish without an institutional affiliation, would my results be taken seriously in academia?

Allure
  • 127,528
  • 50
  • 325
  • 493
user26832
  • 440
  • 1
  • 4
  • 6

3 Answers3

65

Publishing papers about psychology experiments does present an additional issue, human subject research ethics. A reputable journal is likely to require assurance that the rights and welfare of the research subjects were protected during the research.

If you were working or studying at a research university in many countries the university would have some provision for reviewing the ethics of planned research, and monitoring it in progress. US research universities each have an Institutional review board. A journal could rely on IRB approval to know that the research subjects were protected.

You need to find out how that is handled in your country, and make sure you are following procedures and getting reviews that will make your research acceptable for the journals in which you wish to publish. There are enough pitfalls in doing human, or even animal, experiments that one should really not attempt them without guidance.

Usually, a psychology researcher starts their research career as a graduate student with an academic advisor supervising them. They will learn how their supervisor, and other researchers, prepare and organize experiments. Their supervisor will guide them in selecting ethical experiments, getting informed consent, preparing paperwork for independent review, etc.

Patricia Shanahan
  • 33,247
  • 15
  • 63
  • 103
  • 37
    Because of all the caveats, I suggest the OP not try this without guidance from professionals. It is truly a "Don't Try This At Home" situation. – Buffy Jan 13 '20 at 11:56
  • 2
    @Buffy which professionals? I feel lost. – user26832 Jan 13 '20 at 13:09
  • 11
    Normally you learn how to do this properly in an educational situation, say a graduate program. The professionals are the professors. But you need independent judgement about the ethics of what you want to do from an IRB as the writer of this answer suggests. Otherwise you might step into ethical violations without knowing it. Outside the US, an IRB will have a different name, but most places require the equivalent vetting. – Buffy Jan 13 '20 at 13:13
  • 7
    Research in animal subjects is similarly regulated. – Bryan Krause Jan 13 '20 at 13:39
  • 7
    There are IRBs that are independent from universities, but they cost money and if you don't know how to write a protocol, it will be difficult to get approval. – StrongBad Jan 13 '20 at 14:07
  • 1
    @BryanKrause There are ethically motivated regulations which limit what you can do in animal testing, but the regulations are not nearly as strict as with human test subjects. That applies especially to psychological experiments. There are lots of psychological experiments which could provide very interesting data about human behavior, but telling people exactly what happens during the experiment would skew the results. But you can not get informed consent of the test subjects when you don't tell them what happens during the experiment. That makes many such experiments unethical. – Philipp Jan 15 '20 at 11:34
  • @Phillip I'm well aware, but OP cannot simply dive in to animal research in most places, either, and especially not if they want to publish in reputable journals. – Bryan Krause Jan 15 '20 at 14:32
13

You are absolutely able to publish the results of observational studies with no oversight, and this has been done before without university affiliation. However once you get into 'experiment' territory where human or animal subjects are manipulated in some way, all respectable journals require that you have informed consent or IACAUC review and approval. Without that, you'll mostly be unable to publish your results outside of shady pay-to-publish journals, if that.

HEITZ
  • 10,070
  • 3
  • 24
  • 41
-9

Is it the same with experiments?

Yes, assuming you have sufficient resources to conduct the experiment.

How can I show my experiment was really made rigorously and I'm not faking documents and participants? How can I show the experiment really happened? how can I show I didn't induce some answers to the participants to prove my hypothesis? There are a lot of simple experiments I can do by myself and I want to publish them, how can I be taken serious?

In each instance: The same way a university researcher would.

I didn't think it needed saying, but: The necessary ethical and legal paperwork is required, regardless of where work is conducted; some experiments cannot, should not, or both, be conducted at home; and other caveats. Nonetheless, ultimately, publishable research - even in psychology - can be conducted at home, albeit, you'll need to be selective about the research and you'll need to compliant. (The OP might want to ask should such work be conducted at home, which Patricia Shanahan partly answers.) Working with an industry- or university-affiliated PI - e.g., as an intern working from home - would simplify the process.

That said, given that

I've just finished my under-graduat[e degree] in psychology

You might want to ask: What are the benefits of a supervisor, over working alone? The benefits are significant and I'd recommend supervision.

user2768
  • 40,637
  • 9
  • 93
  • 144
  • 9
    This is not true (as elaborated in the answer by Patricia Shanahan). – Dirk Jan 13 '20 at 12:59
  • @Dirk, which bit? – user2768 Jan 13 '20 at 13:07
  • 7
    The bit "the same way a university researcher would". A university researcher could refer to documents where the university describes how it ensures that all its researchers obey the regulations regarding experiments with human subjects. As a researcher at home this is not possible and one would have to document that one has obeyed all ethical and legal standards in a different way. Maybe the journal just lets you sign a document, but I doubt that (although: not may field, so probably I am wrong). – Dirk Jan 13 '20 at 13:12
  • 1
    @Dirk Patricia Shanahan considers the case of human subjects, it isn't clear whether that's relevant to the OP's question. Regardless, being able to refer to documents...regarding experiments with human subjects isn't relevant in the context of the specific questions to which I answered the same way a university researcher would. For instance, how do such documents help show my experiment was really made rigorously and I'm not faking documents and participants? – user2768 Jan 13 '20 at 13:18
  • 14
    I don't think this answer has sufficient warnings about the pitfalls. – Bryan Krause Jan 13 '20 at 13:38
  • OP includes "I didn't induce some answers to the participants" which seems like there human subjects are involved. Regarding the other question: I once wrote a grant application where experiments with human subject were involved (listening test) and we could refer to some university guidelines which helped a lot with the requirements. Also, if you work at a university you usually have to sign that you obey the codes of scholarly conduct and ethical behavior. In this case the journals just do not ask questions. – Dirk Jan 13 '20 at 13:39
  • Probably Bryan Krauses comment is more spot on than mine… – Dirk Jan 13 '20 at 13:40
  • 10
    I think it's a fair assumption in the dark that any publishable psychological research will, in one way or another, require IRB approval. Not mentioning this makes this answer maybe not strictly wrong, but utterly misleading. – xLeitix Jan 13 '20 at 15:04
  • 4
    @user2768 Most universities have some kind of research ethics training, and everyone must sign and attest that they have been trained and will abide by the regulations. Violating the university's policy of research ethics comes with stiff consequences, like termination, expulsion, or revocation of grants, so the stakes are much higher. An at-home researcher signing a document saying they did everything by the book carries much less weight, since there are little to no consequences for lying about it. There is simply less accountability outside of an institutional setting. – Nuclear Hoagie Jan 13 '20 at 19:10
  • 1
    You all believe research cannot be conducted at home? That seems short sighted: Many workable solutions exist. For instance, it ignores the possibility that a PI employs the OP as an external consultant. – user2768 Jan 14 '20 at 08:26
  • 2
    @user2768 Sure enough, I am doing math research at home. It's the experiment that is hard to do without institutional resources. – Nobody Jan 14 '20 at 09:46
  • 3
    @user2768 while much research can be done at home, psychological experiments are a special exception. In essence, because we've seen the harm done to research subjects by historical research, the whole field has achieved a consensus that we will consider unacceptable to perform psychological (and other) experiments on people without standard safeguards. Furthermore, to remove any possible incentives to ignore the rules, if someone does research on humans without following due process, we'll automatically consider the results of such research as tainted-unusable, unpublishable, unciteable, etc. – Peteris Jan 14 '20 at 16:02
  • 4
    @user2768 We have good reasons to want to artificially establish a 'taboo' boundary on performing any human experimentation not following due process. We don't want "it's simpler to ask forgiveness than permission" to be a possibility; we don't want researchers to "move quickly and break stuff" expecting that if they do find something significant, then the ends will outweigh the means - no, we want to ensure that the means have to be justified, period, or you'll get excluded and shunned for breaking this taboo even if the research is technically solid but not with proper ethical validation. – Peteris Jan 14 '20 at 16:06
  • Patricia Shanahan considers the case of human subjects, it isn't clear whether that's relevant to the OP's question Psychology is, by definition, human subjects. || It's quite obvious you have never worked with human subjects. Frankly, this answer should be deleted because it encourages highly unethical behavior. External consultants would never be hired to perform experiments at "home." – Azor Ahai -him- Jan 14 '20 at 21:35
  • 1
    psychological experiments are a special exception [to research that can be done at home] Yet, such experiments are common place: They are continuously conducted over the Internet. My answer is even clear on the limitations: assuming you have sufficient resources to conduct the experiment. I'm well-aware of much of the above; yet, commentary seems to rule-out the possibility without due consideration. Regardless, a better question is: Should a recent graduate do research at home? I'd say no, regardless of discipline. – user2768 Jan 15 '20 at 08:39
  • 1
    @BryanKrause In all honesty, I thought the pitfalls were obvious, especially as the OP asked can, rather than should. – user2768 Jan 15 '20 at 09:01
  • @user2768 You might be surprised by the sorts of things people have done without realizing they were breaking rules. There's a reason that universities often mandate all sorts of human subjects training even for people that might not be expected to work with human subjects (and, as I've commented elsewhere here, there are similar restrictions even for most animal studies). In any event, I appreciate your edit and have reversed my downvote to an upvote. – Bryan Krause Jan 15 '20 at 17:24
  • 2
    @AzorAhai "Psychology is, by definition, human subjects" - I disagree strongly; a lot of psychology research uses animal models. The lines between psychology and neuroscience can get a bit blurry there, but defining psychology as involving human subjects is not correct. – Bryan Krause Jan 15 '20 at 17:26