Advertisement

Current Psychology

, Volume 38, Issue 2, pp 405–410 | Cite as

“A Case for Treatment”: What do Research Reports on Salt and Pepper Passage Reveal about Research and Publication Practices?

  • Stuart J. McKelvieEmail author
Article

Abstract

Two identical reviews on salt passage (Pencil Journal of Communication, 26(4), 31–36, 1976; Pacanowsky Change, 10(8), 41–43, 1978) made an ironical statement about the research process in psychology. Six recent research reports reconsider this question and extend it to pepper passage. These papers are critically reviewed, exposing blatant defects. It is argued that these papers offer a “case for treatment” that cleverly lampoons the research process but also adds to concerns about the publication practices of certain so-called “predatory” journals. Researchers are advised to exercise caution when submitting papers, particularly when they have been solicited.

Keywords

Salt passage Pepper passage Research and publication practices Predatory journals 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Informed Consent

For this paper, no data were collected from research participants.

Ethical Approval

For this paper, no data were collected from research participants.

Funding

This study was not funded.

Conflict of Interest

The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Beall, J. (2012). Predatory publishers are corrupting open access. Nature, 489(7415), 179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beall, J. (2013). Predatory publishers threaten to erode scholarly communication. Science Editor, 6, 18–19.Google Scholar
  3. Berylisconi, M., Fourrer-Mouton, H., & Simpson-MacDougal, W. S. (2016). Cultural effects proposed for salt and parmesan passage (parmigiano reggiano). International Journal of Science and Healthcare Research, 1(2), 32–39.Google Scholar
  4. Birnbaum, M. H. (1999). How to show that 9 > 221: Collect judgments in a between-subjects design. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 243–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bohannon, J. (2013). Who’s afraid of peer review? Science, 342(6154), 60–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Crawford, W. (2014). Sad case of Jeffrey Beall. Cites and insights, 14 (4), 1–14.Google Scholar
  7. Fernandez-Llimos, F. (2015). Collaborative publishing: The difference between ‘gratis journals’ and ‘open access journals’. Pharmacy Practice, 13, 593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Markowitz, D. M., Powell, J. H., & Hancock, J. T. (2014). The writing style of predatory publishers. American Society for Engineering, 121st. ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Indianapolis, IN, June 15–18.Google Scholar
  9. McCutcheon, L. E., Aruguete, M. S., McKelvie, S. J., Jenkins, W., Williams, J., McCarely, N., et al. (2016). How questionable are predatory social science journals? North American Journal of Psychology, 18, 427–440.Google Scholar
  10. McKelvie, S. J. (1993). Effects of feature variations on attributions for schematic faces. Psychological Reports, 73, 275–288.Google Scholar
  11. McKelvie, S. J. (2001). Factors affecting subjective estimates of magnitude: When is 9 > 221? Perceptual and Motor Skills, 93, 432–434.Google Scholar
  12. McKelvie, S. J. (2012). Exploring a counterintuitive finding with methodological implications : Why is 9 > 221 in a between-subjects design? International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 2, 45–51.Google Scholar
  13. McKelvie, S. J. (2016a). What determines salt and pepper passage? A brief commentary on the published reports. Annals of Behavioral Science, 2, 2:20.Google Scholar
  14. McKelvie, S. J. (2016b). Factors in salt and pepper passage: A further critical report on the state of the art. Psychology and Psychological Research International Journal, 1(1), 000103.Google Scholar
  15. McKelvie, S. J., Juillet, D. R., & Longtin J.-A. V. (2013). Comparing the perceived Size of 9 with 221 and with 2143: Biasing effects of inferred context in a between-subject design. Journal of Scientific Psychology, December, 25–44.Google Scholar
  16. Minér, P. (2015). Sex as factor in salt and pepper passage: Updating the research. International Journal of Research and Review, 2(8), 487–491.Google Scholar
  17. Minér, P., Horn, B., & Patrick, M. (2016). The (long) nose doesn’t have it: Nose length as a factor in salt and pepper passage. Proposal in Psychology Research, 6(2), 1–6.Google Scholar
  18. Neuroskeptic (2016). Advances in the psychology of passing the salt. Discover. Science for the Curious. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2016/10/27/pass-the-salt/#.WSCyKevyvIV.
  19. Pacanowsky, M. (1978). Salt passage research: The state of the art. Change, 10(8), 41–43 http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/vchn20/10/8#.VZr707XLp2A.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Patil, M., & Patrick, M. (2016, in press). Young-old age is factor in passing salt and pepper: Updating research with new study proposal. Accepted for Biomarkers Journal, 2, 3:21.Google Scholar
  21. Patrick, M., Hornbeak, B., Le Nez, L., Patil, M., & Minér, P. (2016a). The (long) nose doesn’t have it: Nose length as a factor in salt and pepper passage. International Journal of Indian Psychology, 3(2, 8), 104–111.Google Scholar
  22. Patrick, M., Le Nez, L., & Minér, P. (2016b). Expected Results Show that a Longer Nose Means Slower Times for Passing the Salt and Pepper: A Second Report. Accepted for Dual Diagnosis: Open Access, 1, 2.14.Google Scholar
  23. Pencil, M. (1976). Salt passage research: The state of the art. Journal of Communication, 26(4), 31–36 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcom.1976.26.issue-4/issuetoc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Priebe, C. S., Atkinson, J., & Faulkner, G. (2016). Run to quit: Program design and evaluation protocol. Mental Health and Physical Activity, 11, 38–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ray, M. (2016). An expanded approach to evaluating open access journals. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 47, 307–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rice, K. E. (n.d.). Key study: on being sane in insane places. http://www.integratedsociopsychology.net/sane_insane-place.html.
  27. Rosenhan, D. (1973). On being sane in insane places. Science, 179(4070), 250–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schubiner, G. (2009). In defense of open access. Columbia Spectator, http://columbiaspectator.com/eye/2009/04/09/defense-open-access.
  29. Shen, C., & Björk, B. (2015). ‘predatory’ open access: A longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics. BMC Medicine, 13, 230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Smith, R. (2006). Peer review: A flawed process at the heart of science and journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 99, 178–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Spillman, L. (2015). Ghosts of straw men: A reply to lee and Martin. American Journal of Cultural Sociology, 3, 365–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Spitzer, R. L. (1975). On pseudoscience in science, logic in remission, and psychiatric diagnosis: A critique of Rosenhan’s “on being sane in insane places”. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 84, 442–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tin, L., Ivana, B., Biljana, B., Ljubica, I. B., Dragan, M., & Dusan, S. (2014). Predatory and fake scientific journals/publishers – A global outbrea with rising trends: A review. Geographica Pannonica, 18, 69–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. van ‘t Veer, A. E., & Giner-Sorolla, R. (2016). Pre-registration in social psychology - a discussion and suggested template. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 67, 2–12 Article accepted: March 2016. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2016.03.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyBishop’s UniversitySherbrookeCanada

Personalised recommendations