首页> 外文OA文献 >Advancing Scientific Discourse in the Controversy Surrounding the Comprehensive System for the Rorschach: A Rejoinder to Meyer (2000)
【2h】

Advancing Scientific Discourse in the Controversy Surrounding the Comprehensive System for the Rorschach: A Rejoinder to Meyer (2000)

机译:围绕罗尔沙赫综合体系的争议推进科学话语:对迈耶的回应(2000)

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

A recent commentary by Meyer (2000) in the Journal of Personality Assessment alleged that Rorschach critic Wood and his colleagues had intentionally published information that they knew to be in error. To substantiate this contention, Meyer’s commentary published information that was part of the peer review process at another journal. In this rejoinder, we present factual information that shows we have consistently acted in good faith. This rejoinder suggests that the scientific debate regarding the Comprehensive System for the Rorschach is unlikely to be advanced by speculating about the intentions of Rorschach critics, or by publishing information from the peer review process that is usually kept confidential.
机译:Meyer(2000)最近在《人格评估杂志》上发表评论说,罗夏墨迹评论家伍德和他的同事故意发布了他们知道是错误的信息。为了证实这一观点,Meyer的评论发表了信息,这是另一本杂志的同行评审过程的一部分。在这次聚会中,我们提供了一些事实信息,这些信息表明我们始终如一地真诚行事。这种反驳表明,关于罗夏墨迹全面系统的科学辩论不太可能通过推测罗夏墨迹评论家的意图或通过发布同行评议过程中通常保密的信息来推进。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号