Social Science - Science topic

23 November MMXXII

No.

Cordially...

ASJ

Dear Agnieszka,

Of course there is censorship of every kind and everywhere today in the social sciences: from self-censorship due to multiple kinds of fears (including smearing of colleagues in ways that are defamatory and without any chance to reply which is a growing problem even in scholarly journals) and taboos, to financial and political influence that defines "current debates", to redefinitions of and limitations of fields that change what questions and what conclusions and what methodologies are allowed, to disciplinary barriers, to hierarchies of corporate journals that determine what is reviewed and by whom and what space is allotted and who can be cited, and every other kind of conflicts of interest and hierarchy, even in book reviews that now have to be promotional for colleagues rather than honest and constructive criticism and debates. And most journals today have eliminated letters to the editor and debates, while discussion platforms are also pre-screened Ralph Nader used to say that in legal scholarship, you can't present a new idea because you "can't footnote it" and today you can't get a minority idea through a "majority" peer review in most fields, where the standard is now subjective agreement. To be heard with credibility, you need to have your own journal and press but that is also subject to controls.

I suggest that you focus on solutions:

(1) de-politicizing peer review, is one, so that following a methodology protects even unpopular conclusions. Here is one of two articles that I have offered to set the model, in response to politicization in one of my fields. (This one was censored and then finally published and the other one on book review standards can still not be published.)

“Returning Discipline to the Discipline: A Model Procedure for Reviews in Anthropology, Other Social Sciences, and Related Disciplines,” Catalyst: A Social Justice Forum, 2018, Volume 8, Issue 1, Article 10, pages 301 - 326. Available at: http://trace.tennessee.edu/catalyst/vol8/iss1/10

(2) You can also try to set up a new e-journal that allows for alternative work and is open to work that has been censored. If anyone reading this would like to do that and has a platform, contact me so that I can join you.

If you just want to read about the general problem today, take a look at this piece and the special issue of Catalyst that I edited to open debate on this issue.

“Foreword: The Death of Social Sciences in an Era of Multi-Cultural Corporatism (Neo-Liberalism): With Efforts at Resuscitation”, Catalyst: A Social Justice Forum, 2018, Vol. 8, Issue 1, Article 2, pages 1 – 52.

Available at: http://trace.tennessee.edu/catalyst/vol8/iss1/2

Here's a short article on the general problem globally.

“Are Social Scientists Next to be Imprisoned and Tortured?: A Call to Unite and Oppose the Criminalization of Social Science, Contexts (American Sociological Association), 2019. Available at: https://contexts.org/blog/are-social-scientists-next-to-be-imprisoned-and-tortured-a-call-to-unite-and-oppose-the-criminalization-of-social-science/

You can also look at a piece I put up on ResearchGate in response to political pressures in Anthropology that are a result of the current war in Ukraine. The censorship today is exactly the opposite line from 30 years ago when the line then was that Russia was a "democracy". The fact that censorship can move so quickly and easily from one position to its opposite shows how politicized social science has become.

Best,

David Lempert, Ph.D., J.D., M.B.A., E.D. (Hon.)

Dear Christopher Bush ,

The publisher behind the journal “Advances in Social Science and Culture” is “Scholink Co., Ltd.” (http://www.scholink.org/Home.html ). This publisher is mentioned in the Beall’s list of potential predatory publishers (https://beallslist.net ). This is a red flag and by itself not enough to say that the journal/publisher is predatory, but there are more red flags:

-Contact info are most likely just virtual offices, see for example https://www.davincivirtual.com/loc/us/california/los-angeles-virtual-offices/facility-4424

-According to their FAQ section they state in question nine “Scholink is a new publisher found and created in 2012. Therefore, the ability to assess our impact has not been possible. Once we have enough data, we will place it on the journal homepage.” Now ten years later not a single of their journals has any serious indexing (Scopus, impact factor etc.)

-The same is true for the journal “Advances in Social Science and Culture”. Not a single serious index (http://www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/assc ). Just (mostly) pointless ‘indexing’ like Yahoo…

-Papers have virtually no editing

-The announcement section (http://www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/assc/announcement ) mentions relative while they mean related and talk about “doctorial [sic] degree” and at the same time “proficiency in English”

-Looking at their editorial team there are no reviewers from the US and the UK (http://www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/assc/about/editorialTeam ). In other words, why use locations that suggest this origin while it is not

So, not sure whether predatory is the most accurate ‘label’ but the quality is questionable. Personally, I would avoid this one.

Best regards.

Dear Anwar,

ENMs can be used (and I'm sure they are used) outside the scope of ecology, but I guess they have different names in different fields. They are simple models for datasets containing some predictors and a 0/1 response variable - and it is not specific to ecology. And most of the ENMs are not spatial models sensu stricto - they are displayed in the geographic space, and one can study the spatial autocorelation of the residuals, but otherwise the models do not need spatial information to be trained.

HTH,

Ákos

يمكنك الاستفادة من كتب الدكتور علي الوردي فانه جيد في هذا المجال

Have you thought about looking at the history of the various disciplines that comprise the social sciences? This includes when they entered the academy and became separate disciplines. Of course, different countries have different designations. The late 18th early 19th century are important, especially in Europe and then North America.

The good part is the technique can be applied to any area. However, the bad part is not that easy. I used it on the question of free will (philosophy) . The second part of that article to be published soon hopefully. Admittedly, the technique requires a long steep learning curve. Note it is not Buckingham's Theorem that appear in many books and papers. You can read more in my book Basics of Fluid Mechanics Dimensional Chapter (not easy to read but provide the flavor even to none fluid mechanics people).

Dear Mohamad Syahrul Nizam Ibrahim ,

In general this is virtually impossible to say. I depends on numerous variables, think of:

-Difference between the various disciplines

-Differences between countries (and between different universities)

-Other criteria than H-index. I see here on RG that in some countries it depends on number of publications in Scopus and/or papers in journals with an impact factor

-Etc.

I found a source that not looked at number of publications but indeed to the closely related metric the h-index (for more info, and criticism, see for example https://www.aacc.org/cln/articles/2019/september/scientific-impact-and-the-h-index).

They studied your question and they found “A colleague and I surveyed typical values for academic physicians in 14 medical specialties (Am J Clin Pathol 2019;151:286-91). We found that, on average, assistant professors have an h-index of 2-5, associate professors 6-10, and full professors 12-24. These are mean or median values only—the distribution of values at each rank is very wide. If you hope to win a Nobel Prize, your h-index should be at least 35 and preferably closer to 70.”

But this is only studied in the field of medicine. In general I hope that selection is based on more than just counting numbers (publications, citations, etc.).

Best regards.

There are various interesting books that render guidance on scale development. Here are some good reads.

DeVellis, R. F., & Thorpe, C. T. (2022). Scale development: Theory and applications (5^th ed.). SAGE. https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/scale-development/book269114

Furr, R. M. (2011). Scale construction and psychometrics for social and personality psychology . SAGE. https://methods.sagepub.com/book/scale-construction-and-psychometrics-for-social-and-personality-psychology

Irwing, P., Booth, T., & Hughes, D. J. (Eds.). (2018). The Wiley handbook of psychometric testing: A multidisciplinary reference on survey, scale and test development (1^st ed.). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118489772

Johnson, R. L., & Morgan, G. B. (2016). Survey scales: A guide to development, analysis, and reporting. The Guilford Press. https://www.routledge.com/Survey-Scales-A-Guide-to-Development-Analysis-and-Reporting/Johnson-Morgan/p/book/9781462526963

Good luck,

Sharif El Masry Have a look

Understand and explore nature (and people as part of it). On my opinion, anything else is already politics

A high R-square of above 60%(0.60) is required for studies in the 'pure science' field because the behaviour of molecules and/or particles can be reasonably predicted to some degree of accuracy in science research; while an R-square as low as 10% is generally accepted for studies in the field of arts, humanities and social sciences because human behaviour cannot be accurately predicted, therefore, a low R-square is often not a problem in studies in the arts, humanities and social science field. However, that should not be an excuse for not improving the R-square value if it can be improved.

All due respect to you for this question.

All due respect to you for this question

personal interview. Field Stud.

Dear Prof. Ferhan Kuyucak Sengur and all the respected RG colleagues,

This respected portal (i.e. RG) defines plagiarism as:

On the other side, self-plagiarism is when the author republishes portions of his/her own previously written research work while authoring a new work.

I may be somewhat old-fashioned, but please have a look at the following golden principles on how to avoid plagiarism in academic writing, especially Self-Plagiarism:

Finally, believe me, or not: If you make one plagiarizing, you may solve one problem and fall into many others where some of which may be described as a knockout. Again and again, please always remember that if there were accusations of plagiarism, it is not well for any researcher's reputation, in any meaning.

Self-citation may be necessary in many cases to complete the research study according to the world's progress. There may be a room for self-citation - but it is a good practice to limit the practice when possible.Therefore, self-citation is a sensitive issue.

On the other hand, "Citation Farms", also known as "Citation Cartels", consist of authors who routinely and enormously self-cite or cite each other for the purpose of raising their citation counters and, in turn, promoting the impact of their publications.

Let me show you this paragraph:

"Self citation. Researchers may need to cite their previously published works in order to communicate an idea effectively in their present manuscript. While IGI Global encourages the use of self citations in these cases, it is important that self-cited works do not account for, at most, 50% of the total references in the manuscript."

How to establish new theories in the field of digital communication ?

All due respect to you for your excellent Scientific Research Work, very remarkable and with good scheduled.

One month is a fairly short time. You shouldn't loose any, if you do it is statististically insignificant.

Cecilia Veas In the social sciences we do not have a so called 'hierarchy' of evidence. What we do have is a range of both quantitative and qualitative methods, each of which serves a purpose. Often several methods are used in order to raise validity. This is called 'triangulation'. There are many excellent social science studies that have used triangulation, by very respected academics. we regard different research methods as horses for courses, that is, each has a value and it depends on the nature of the research topic as to which method or methods are used. So mostly all are of equal value, although there is some dispute among academics as to whether quantitative data is superior to qualitative data.

Dear

you can follow my items and find what is your interests

yours

Hussein

Mainly it depends on the objectives of your evaluation, but if you use JAP test, in my opinion it will very beneficial for you.

Dear Benjamin Neumann . See the following useful RG links:

I'm not sure why you would want to do this. You would loose information about individual differences and increase measurement error. This could lead to bias in, for example, estimates of correlations of the scale scores with other variables. Unless you have very specific reasons for grouping the scores, I would advise against it.

Visit also the following useful link: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/113462/3/Greene_ai_and_the_social_sciences_published.pdf

The two summary statistics commonly used for meta-analysis of continuous data are the mean difference (MD) and the standardized mean difference (SMD). Other options are available, such as the ratio of means.

For exploratory factor analysis?

Bartlett’s test will tell you whether your data fit for factor analysis or not?

And the chi-square test will tell you if there is a sufficient quantity of factors extracted to explain the variance observed in the data.

I think you will require both.

Best!!

AN

If you are doing a multiple case comparison, I like Robert Yin's book on this kind of research (Case Study Research: Design and Methods).

Oh now I see. Do you mean taxonomies of phenomena in psychology? Of course now I understand that my answer is for the philosophical part and not so much for categories that are used in research on general psychological processes.

just found an article https://retractionwatch.com/2021/12/07/researchers-sound-alarm-on-predatory-rankings/

Actually, I do not know that mixed-method has limitations. Thank you for the useful RG link.

Kind Regards,

Try Statistics for People Who (Think They) Hate Statistics by Neil Salkind & Bruce Frey. It's a great intro to statistics that I've used to help quite a few students struggling in statistics.

Dear Caitlin Blaser Mapitsa,

In my opinion, this science portal, the Research Gate web platform, is also an excellent platform for the development of scientific cooperation in the field of social sciences. The Research Gate portal is an internet platform that facilitates the development of scientific cooperation on a local, regional, as well as international and global scale. The possibilities of developing cooperation through the RG portal concern various fields of science and scientific disciplines, including various research topics developed within the social sciences. I invite you to research cooperation.

Best regards,

Dariusz

Min Soek Won -

You can research "graphical residual analysis" on the internet. It is a scatterplot technique that I think you can learn fairly quickly. Then, "cross-validation" just means looking to see if your model too closely just fits that one sample. There are various techniques for that. If you can split your sample into two smaller samples, you could see if graphical residual analyses on the separate samples, so separate scatterplots, tell you the same model fits well for both. (More data would be helpful.) That would be one form of cross-validation.

Anyway, you could start by just researching "graphical residual analysis."

Best wishes - Jim

يجب اطلااع على مهارات المرونة

Hi,

a sample size of 200-300 persons answering your survey seems to be ok if the city is not that big. Depending on how differentiated your analysis is intended to be (e.g. for living areas, districts and so on) you might want to have more participants.

A response rate of 5-10% is reasonable. So, you would have to contact about 3000 persons. If you want to do a online survey, this can be done by advertising on social media or by using some other way of dissemination, like e-mail lists.

If you do it by regular mail, response rate is also quite low.

If you want to do face to face, these might be less persons to be contacted, because the response rate is higher.

Best

R.

The reasons include:

changes in the data collection method

changes in government motives

A development in science and technology

Dear Dr Tadiwa Elisha Nyamasvisva,

In my opinion, age is not an important factor since you can see that a lot of old person are sometimes more performant than young people (and vice versa). However, the discipline of study, the actual infrastructure of the university, the type of reserach conducted during a PhD and the disponibility of reactifs and materials (in time) are the keys factors to clearly determine the time in which a PhD could possibly be obtained (let's not forget that the choice of PhD supervisor is also a crusial / mandatory element).

Best wishes,

Sabri

Alumu Srinivasulu sure why not there are many evaluators you can get them but need more details contact information as in how to contact and take this further

Hi,

This is one of the most widely used books on scale development

DeVellis RF. Scale Development: Theory and Application. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications (2012).

I am an R user. But I don't work in the traditional social sciences. ... I think I would add one word of caution. Much of the analysis in R is done with supplemental packages. Some of these are well established. But, honestly, anyone can write and publish a package without any review of the soundness of the functions in the package. I could see reviewers being skeptical of packages that are less well known. And, honestly, it's easy for users to misuse packages. There's not an overall consistency with how different functions in different packages expect data to be formatted. It's important to read and understand package documentation .... If you are new to using R, it's important to find good and useful examples of analyses. Things are better now, but 10 or 12 years ago when I started using R, it seemed like the available examples online were tough to follow. These are still around. ... As a beginner, it's a good idea to find a published example of an analysis that you can duplicate in R. These could come from textbooks or various websites. For the beginner, it's also a good idea to use one of the gui implementations of R, like Jamovi or Rcommander. But I honestly recommend, when working on a dissertation, to do analysis with a scripting language as opposed to a gui ---- which could be in R or SAS or SPSS, and so on ---- so you can go back and see exactly what analysis you did, and you can copy or modify the analysis as needed.

It is impossible to help you without acknowledging your research question, problem, and domain. What are you researching? What do you want to answer? If you give us these critical elements, we can certainly help you.

Isabelle Skakni A good rule of thumb to follow when selecting whether to employ qualitative or quantitative data is: quantitative analysis is preferable if you want to confirm or test something (a theory or hypothesis) and If you want to understand anything, use qualitative research (concepts, thoughts, experiences)

According to Creswell's book. These are philosophical assumptions and interpretative frameworks. I would recommend his book:

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches. Los Angles: Sage.

Then it will depend what you want to do.

a good paper on this that describes the alternatives is Nahm 2016:

doi: 10.4097/kjae.2016.69.1.8

or try this website to explore options depending on your data:

Dear Dr Sunny Chi Lik Au . See the following useful RG link:

Dear Neesha

Please see this link. Hope this can help you

The operationalization of digital capital is crucial in order to research digital inequalities. Digital capital, according to the definitions of leading authors in the field of digital sociology, agrees very well with Bourdieu's analytical focus on how capitals convert into each other, which may explain how new forms are being created inequalities or maintain existing ones. As for concrete case studies in the digital sphere, digital capital offers some handy theoretical tools that are more appropriate and specific than classical Bourdieu notions such as habitus or cultural capital. Changing the nature of the Internet and modern technologies requires both flexible theoretical concepts, and existing one's definitions and conceptualizations of digital capital can serve as a potential response to challenges of digital case studies. However, digital capital needs to be further expanded to include elements of digital culture precisely because it could adequately encompass online culture and digital products, such as online memes that are becoming increasingly popular and diverse. Recent works dealing with digital inequalities in Europe and the world show that digital inequalities in many countries can be perceived through the same social factors.

Before we start an article or research on emotional pain, I think we should look closely about the main components or dimensions that make up emotional pain, and through which we can find a treatment that enables us to overcome or alleviate it in the individual who suffers from it.

interested

Hi again, Chinchu C Mullanvathukkal , interesting how the researchgate alorithm works, this paper was just recommended to me, maybe the tool they portray is just, what you are looking for:

Sample size estimation should be executed so that the study objectives could be achieved significantly. Sample size calculation depends on various factors: size of difference, significance level, power (chance of detecting a significant result if true difference is there) and standard deviation of data (to understand how much variability).

and thus the following formula will be suitable as it tends to be conservative:

[2*(Z(1-α/2)+Zβ)2 * sigma square]/Delta square

Z = points on normal distribution to give required power (β) and significance (α)

CI Approach – normal distribution – shebisos theorem – standard distribution (z value – the standardized standard deviation – standard deviation from the mean)

Confidence interval – error chance of 5% - the alpha

Z = x – mean/standard error(distribution of the sample standard deviation) – sigma / root over n

sigma / root over n = x – mew/z

root over n = Z sigma/ x – mew

n = z sigma whole square/x – mew whole square

Level of precision, level of confidence or risk, degree of variability in the attributes being measured (prevalence), external validity

1. Identify major study variable

2. Determine type of estimate

3. Indicate expected frequency of factor of interest – if study something that’s rare or normal

4. Decide on desired presicion of the estimate

5. Decide on acceptable risk that estimate will fall outside its real population value

6. Adjust for population size

7. Adjust for estimated design effect

8. Adjust for estimated response rate

Dear Joshua,

Every year happening international SOCIN conferences at Mykolas Romeris university (of social sciences) in Vilnius, Lithuania.

Dear Dr Dariusz Prokopowicz,

A very interesting topic, thank you. In my opinion, all scientific discoveries established during the previous centuries such as mathematical equations serves as the basis for the actual mathematical approach. Another example would be the geographical works of antiquity which have served both as a scientific model and also as a corpus of data which could be used for modern purposes.

Best wishes,

Sabri

I think 'GRIN Publishing' is one of the vanity publishers. Do not publish your thesis or book via this publisher, it may bring trouble in your scientific career.

China is experiencing a “national movement” as companies, regional governments and academia shift gears to help the country meet its climate goals. The world’s top carbon emitter has, for the first time, published plans broadly outlining how it might achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2060, and a peak of emissions before 2030 — promises it made in 2019. The move has spurred more than ten prominent universities and institutions to set up carbon-neutrality-research institutes already this year; the Chinese Academy of Sciences launched a centre last month. But some researchers are still disappointed with the climate commitments the country has made so far...

Check on this paper.

Você pode ler o livro "Microfísica do Poder" de Michel Focault.

A literature review reflects the sum of the details of previous works in the field specified + present area of proposed work may be emperical / theoretical scopre of study .

In my mind, you can try to have a list of this year's journal index and then select depending on your work.

Both are essential my friend...

A bit too much of the results is presented on Researchgate with the lack of the backyard and preparation process for research. It could be good to see also the kitchen of the dinner of the researchers.

Excellent! I will follow up on this! Thank you!

Angel, I have published lots of quantitative data in the humanities. I am re-developing structuralist anthropology, using a new theory of subconscious expression of archetypal structure. The model consists of five inter-dependent layers of structure, totaling about 100 categoric recurrent features, including a spatial layer. The data thus far includes 800 artworks and rock art works, 100 built sites, four iconic sets, a myth cycle, and soon to include a pilgrimage route, and some pantheons. The subject is recurrent features in all the cultural media. The model is over-determined and highly testable.

The outcome thus far is consistent, that every cultural set expresses archetypal structure; that subconscious behaviour is prevalent and rigorous; that structuralist analysis enables some conscious, categoric, quantitative access to subconscious behaviour; that there are no exceptions; that subconscious behaviour is compulsive; and predictive. The implications for anthropology, sociology, art history, psychology, cognitive studies, and philosophy, are significant.

I expect that some researchers, and perhaps some institutes, would test some of my data, and test the model on other data. I have developed a standard format for cultural data, to enable comparison. I expect confirmation, and that the humanities would become scientific, and rid themselves of the current silent paradigm of assumptions of culture and consciousness as supposedly 'invented, developed, diffused, evolved.' The new paradigm would validate Zpif and some other theorists, and resolve many divisive issues in the human sciences.

No amount of narrative, qualitative argument could develop the human sciences, or resolve their correspondence 'theories' and confirmation biases. Only quantitative data would change the paradigm from assumptions to theory. The new model is capable of answering the big questions of the social sciences, including Who and what humanity is. The answer involves our species as embedded in natural structure, and out works as extensions of nature. Individual works use a narrow range of optional features. Randomly chosen groups of works, from 50 upward, ideally 100 upward, reveal a sixth layer of structure, being fixed average frequencies for each of the 100 recurrent features.

The data dispels fondly held delusions of Who and what humanity thought it were. I expect that the humanities could revolutionise their profile in popular culture, where the central flaw of mis-applied evolutionism is particularly pronounced.

I am adding to my data quarterly by publishing magazines themed on specific cultures or sites or media.

I invite you use my data. I situate my theory in structuralist anthropology, and give a summary of my data and its format, is at the end of my paper Blueprint. Here is a link: https://edmondfurter.wordpress.com/2020/04/01/blueprint-the-subconscious-structure-in-cultural-media/

Cronbach’s alpha, which is a measure used to assess the reliability, or internal consistency, of a set of scale or test items.

As our socio-economic transactions are based on payment chains, we have also to focus on sustainable monetary agency, with respect to banking:

Dear Ken Falculan ,

The journal “International Journal of Humanities and Social Science (IJHSS)” ISSN 2220-8488 (Print), 2221-0989 (Online) (http://ijhssnet.com/) is published by “Center for Promoting Ideas (CPI)” (http://www.cpinet.info/ ) and this publisher is included in the Beall’s list of predatory publishers https://beallslist.net/ . This is a warning sign. There are more warning signs that this might be a predatory journal:

-There seems to be something odd with the ISSN numbers of the journal (just look at for example https://portal.issn.org/resource/ISSN/2221-0989)

-They ‘proudly’ present in the latest news (http://www.ijhssnet.com/journal/index/1790#ind) a DRJI indexing, which is a notorious example of so-called misleading metrics (https://beallslist.net/misleading-metrics/)

-See also http://flakyj.blogspot.com/search/label/CPI

-The indexing page misleadingly suggest a membership of DOAJ while they are not

So, I would say avoid this one.

Best regards.

Implications are a logical construct

this is an excellent resource with code and videos for panel models and many others:

6 October MMXXI

That's a really good question, and perhaps unanswerable.

I see Science in one corner and Philosophy in the other corner--opposite one and other.

Will they come out to fight each other, or to cooperate?

This quandary should be talked about more frequently.