英文摘要 |
Scientists today face two challenges in their daily professional activities of discovering facts and converting them into new knowledge: how to contribute solid scientific discoveries and how to convince their colleagues that they have. In analyzing this dynamic dialectic, I apply a neuroanatomy-based, three-level analytical framework of cognitive mapping, sensory landmarks (observable cues), and judgment of truth to reveal the choice underlying successful rebuttals of scientific journals in medical biology. The subcategories of cognitive mapping are the overall impression of conclusion and new insight of the study. The subcategories of sensory landmarks include reliability of materials and methods, adequate experimental design with appropriate control group, facts as such, significance of comparative results, and sufficient evidence. The subcategories of judgment of truth are fitting in the common sense interpretation of the scientific community, paradigm coherence, and clarity without contradiction. Despite differences in topics and methodology, the most frequent critiques during reviewing process are issues about sensory landmarks that consists 155 questions. 38 questions belong to judgment of truth and 17 to cognitive mapping. Only 13 of the reviewers’ questions do not fit in this analytical framework. Interestingly, results in a survey of 19 academic biologists also revealed that reliability of material/methodology and insufficient data to support the conclusion are two frequent critiques. The reply strategies used by the authors in order is 1. defend the legitimacy of experimental material and methods, 2. strengthen description, 3. quote references/explain within paradigm, 4. provide clear cut evidence. Overall, most of replies are to provide solid observable facts that are acceptable for the particular scientific community. Appling this three-level analytical framework to evaluate the logic of scientific discussion, one is able to identify rationalism on sensory experience and incorporate new findings into established paradigm. Most importantly, it reveals that cognitive facts are the fundamental bases of scientific judgment. |