The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Review Paper : Psychology of the Scientist: An Evaluative Review
Abstract
Although the social processes in scientific inquiry have received extensive analysis, psychologists have devoted relatively little attention to the thoughts, feelings, and actions of the individual scientist. This neglect has resulted in an unfortunate failure to evaluate long held assumptions about scientist behaviour. This article reviews sociological, archival, and recent experimental evidence bearing on the psychology of the scientist. These data suggest that the correspondence between scientist behaviour and accepted scientific 'ideals' may be far less than has been presumed. After briefly reappraising those ideals, it is argued that psychological research - and particularly psychological theorizing- are critical to an adequate understanding and refinement of human factors in science.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“For instance, con fi rmatory bias -one's tendency to overweight con fi rmatory and underweight discon fi rmatory evidence -may lead scholars to depart from scienti fi c ideals such as objectivity and neutrality, and trigger resistance (Mahoney, 1979).”
From Unraveling scientific impact: Citation types in marketing journals (2015) · cites this paper as Mahoney, 1979
Citations
Cites
The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again
Peters, D. P., & Ceci, S. J. (1982) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00011183 · Cited by 1,079
Nelson, L. D., Simmons, J., & Simonsohn, U. (2018) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011836 · Cited by 548
How Much Better Are the Most-Prestigious Journals? The Statistics of Academic Publication
Starbuck, W. H. (2005) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1040.0107 · Cited by 427
Re-thinking Old Ways: Towards A More Critical Approach To Practical Work In School Science
Hodson, D. (1993) · Studies in Science Education · doi:10.1080/03057269308560022 · Cited by 442
Dixon, B. (1973) · DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) · doi:10.1080/03057268508559922 · Cited by 28
Metadata
- Authors
- Mahoney, M. J.
- Corresponding author
- Mahoney, Michael J.
- ORCID
- Mahoney, Michael J.
- Venue
- Social Studies of Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1979-08
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 349-375
- ISSN
- 0036-8539 (ISSN-L)
- 0306-3127
- 1460-3659
- OpenAlex
- W2046898120
- Cited by
- 180
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 38.02
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Social Studies of Science (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › General Psychology › Academic and Historical Perspectives in Psychology
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management of Technology and Innovation › Research, Science, and Academia
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
- Keywords
- scientific ideal, scientific personality, psychology of science
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review