We may be arguing about what we think of as scientific. For me, it's research conducted under certain conditions, peer reviewed and tested by others. For you, it seems to be something else.
Good point. You are talking about publishable research, as opposed to settled findings, something someone would accord the label "science" to. But the quality of even publishable research depends on which journals accept it, which peers review it, and so on. Publishing stuff in the best journals is clearly better research and if the article(s) have been reviewed by the best in the field, that's better still and if the field has a reputation for good work better still. Makes them even more plausible.
But anyone wishing to decide whether they actually constitute good research should check the work itself--as in back to my mantra--check the concepts, the operationalizations, the research design (how well the design controlled for other explanatory variables), how well the sample is created, and so on.
Admittedly, I should read some of the best work in the field to offer serious criticism but I'm too busy with other matters these days. I might get to it later. Who knows. |
