2022
Karhulahti, Veli-Matti
Reasons for Qualitative Psychologists to Share Human Data Journal Article
In: British Journal of Social Psychology, 2022, ISSN: 0144-6665.
Abstract | Links | Tags: Ethics, Human data, Open science, Qualitative Methods
@article{Karhulahti2022b,
title = {Reasons for Qualitative Psychologists to Share Human Data},
author = {Veli-Matti Karhulahti},
url = {http://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:jyu-202209124552},
doi = {10.1111/bjso.12573},
issn = {0144-6665},
year = {2022},
date = {2022-09-06},
urldate = {2022-09-06},
journal = {British Journal of Social Psychology},
abstract = {Qualitative data sharing practices in psychology have not developed as rapidly as those in parallel quantitative domains. This is often explained by numerous epistemological, ethical and pragmatic issues concerning qualitative data types. In this article, I provide an alternative to the frequently expressed, often reasonable, concerns regarding the sharing of qualitative human data by highlighting three advantages of qualitative data sharing. I argue that sharing qualitative human data is not by default ‘less ethical’, ‘riskier’ and ‘impractical’ compared with quantitative data sharing, but in some cases more ethical, less risky and easier to manage for sharing because (1) informed consent can be discussed, negotiated and validated; (2) the shared data can be curated by special means; and (3) the privacy risks are mainly local instead of global. I hope this alternative perspective further encourages qualitative psychologists to share their data when it is epistemologically, ethically and pragmatically possible.},
keywords = {Ethics, Human data, Open science, Qualitative Methods},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Qualitative data sharing practices in psychology have not developed as rapidly as those in parallel quantitative domains. This is often explained by numerous epistemological, ethical and pragmatic issues concerning qualitative data types. In this article, I provide an alternative to the frequently expressed, often reasonable, concerns regarding the sharing of qualitative human data by highlighting three advantages of qualitative data sharing. I argue that sharing qualitative human data is not by default ‘less ethical’, ‘riskier’ and ‘impractical’ compared with quantitative data sharing, but in some cases more ethical, less risky and easier to manage for sharing because (1) informed consent can be discussed, negotiated and validated; (2) the shared data can be curated by special means; and (3) the privacy risks are mainly local instead of global. I hope this alternative perspective further encourages qualitative psychologists to share their data when it is epistemologically, ethically and pragmatically possible.
Karhulahti, Veli-Matti; Vahlo, Jukka; Martončikc, Marcel; Munukka, Matti; Koskimaa, Raine; von Bonsdorff, Mikaela
Ontological Diversity in Gaming Disorder Measurement: A Nationally Representative Registered Report Journal Article
In: Addiction Research & Theory, 2022, ISSN: 1606-6359.
Abstract | Links | Tags: Behavioral addiction, Games, Open science, Philosophy, Prevalence, Technology use
@article{Karhulahti2022c,
title = {Ontological Diversity in Gaming Disorder Measurement: A Nationally Representative Registered Report},
author = {Veli-Matti Karhulahti and Jukka Vahlo and Marcel Martončikc and Matti Munukka and Raine Koskimaa and Mikaela von Bonsdorff},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1080/16066359.2022.2115033},
doi = {10.1080/16066359.2022.2115033},
issn = {1606-6359},
year = {2022},
date = {2022-09-05},
urldate = {2022-09-05},
journal = {Addiction Research & Theory},
abstract = {Gaming-related health problems have been researched since the 1980s with numerous different ontol-ogies as reference systems, from self-assessed‘game addiction’to‘pathological gambling’(in theDiagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders[DSM]-IV),‘internet gaming disorder’(in the thirdsection of the DSM-5) and most recently‘gaming disorder’(in theInternational Classification of Diseases[ICD]-11). Our goal was to investigate how screening instruments that derive from different ontologiesdiffer in identifying associated problem groups. By using four central screening instruments, each rep-resenting a different ontological basis, we hypothesized differences and similarities inprevalence,over-lap, andhealth. A nationally representative (N¼8217) sample of Finnish participants was collected. Thescreening instruments produced significantly different prevalence rates (from 0.4% to 6.9%) and thebinomial probabilities of group overlap ranged from poor (0.419) to good (0.919). Expectedly, the prob-lem groups had lower mental health than the general population, yet exploratory analyses impliedequivalent or significantlyhigherphysical health. We also found strong exploratory evidence for mis-chievous responding to complicate the measurement of gaming problems. Considering that severalmajor differences were confirmed between the four gaming problem constructs, we recommendresearchers to clearly define theirconstruct of interest, i.e. whether they are studying the ICD-11 basedofficial mental disorder, the DSM-5 proposed‘internet gaming disorder’, or other gaming problems—especially in future meta-analyses.},
keywords = {Behavioral addiction, Games, Open science, Philosophy, Prevalence, Technology use},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Gaming-related health problems have been researched since the 1980s with numerous different ontol-ogies as reference systems, from self-assessed‘game addiction’to‘pathological gambling’(in theDiagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders[DSM]-IV),‘internet gaming disorder’(in the thirdsection of the DSM-5) and most recently‘gaming disorder’(in theInternational Classification of Diseases[ICD]-11). Our goal was to investigate how screening instruments that derive from different ontologiesdiffer in identifying associated problem groups. By using four central screening instruments, each rep-resenting a different ontological basis, we hypothesized differences and similarities inprevalence,over-lap, andhealth. A nationally representative (N¼8217) sample of Finnish participants was collected. Thescreening instruments produced significantly different prevalence rates (from 0.4% to 6.9%) and thebinomial probabilities of group overlap ranged from poor (0.419) to good (0.919). Expectedly, the prob-lem groups had lower mental health than the general population, yet exploratory analyses impliedequivalent or significantlyhigherphysical health. We also found strong exploratory evidence for mis-chievous responding to complicate the measurement of gaming problems. Considering that severalmajor differences were confirmed between the four gaming problem constructs, we recommendresearchers to clearly define theirconstruct of interest, i.e. whether they are studying the ICD-11 basedofficial mental disorder, the DSM-5 proposed‘internet gaming disorder’, or other gaming problems—especially in future meta-analyses.
2021
Karhulahti, Veli-Matti; Backe, Hans-Joachim
Transparency of Peer Review: A Semi-structured Interview Study with Chief Editors from Social Sciences and Humanities Journal Article
In: Research Integrity and Peer Review, vol. 6, iss. 1, pp. 1-13, 2021, ISSN: 2058-8615.
Abstract | Links | Tags: Ethics, Journalology, Open science, Peer review, Social sciences and humanities
@article{Karhulahti2021e,
title = {Transparency of Peer Review: A Semi-structured Interview Study with Chief Editors from Social Sciences and Humanities},
author = {Veli-Matti Karhulahti and Hans-Joachim Backe},
url = {http://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:jyu-202111225749},
doi = {10.1186/s41073-021-00116-4},
issn = {2058-8615},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-11-18},
journal = {Research Integrity and Peer Review},
volume = {6},
issue = {1},
pages = {1-13},
abstract = {Abstract Background Open peer review practices are increasing in medicine and life sciences, but in social sciences and humanities (SSH) they are still rare. We aimed to map out how editors of respected SSH journals perceive open peer review, how they balance policy, ethics, and pragmatism in the review processes they oversee, and how they view their own power in the process. Methods We conducted 12 pre-registered semi-structured interviews with editors of respected SSH journals. Interviews consisted of 21 questions and lasted an average of 67 min. Interviews were transcribed, descriptively coded, and organized into code families. Results SSH editors saw anonymized peer review benefits to outweigh those of open peer review. They considered anonymized peer review the “gold standard” that authors and editors are expected to follow to respect institutional policies; moreover, anonymized review was also perceived as ethically superior due to the protection it provides, and more pragmatic due to eased seeking of reviewers. Finally, editors acknowledged their power in the publication process and reported strategies for keeping their work as unbiased as possible. Conclusions Editors of SSH journals preferred the benefits of anonymized peer review over open peer and acknowledged the power they hold in the publication process during which authors are almost completely disclosed to editorial bodies. We recommend journals to communicate the transparency elements of their manuscript review processes by listing all bodies who contributed to the decision on every review stage.
},
keywords = {Ethics, Journalology, Open science, Peer review, Social sciences and humanities},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Abstract Background Open peer review practices are increasing in medicine and life sciences, but in social sciences and humanities (SSH) they are still rare. We aimed to map out how editors of respected SSH journals perceive open peer review, how they balance policy, ethics, and pragmatism in the review processes they oversee, and how they view their own power in the process. Methods We conducted 12 pre-registered semi-structured interviews with editors of respected SSH journals. Interviews consisted of 21 questions and lasted an average of 67 min. Interviews were transcribed, descriptively coded, and organized into code families. Results SSH editors saw anonymized peer review benefits to outweigh those of open peer review. They considered anonymized peer review the “gold standard” that authors and editors are expected to follow to respect institutional policies; moreover, anonymized review was also perceived as ethically superior due to the protection it provides, and more pragmatic due to eased seeking of reviewers. Finally, editors acknowledged their power in the publication process and reported strategies for keeping their work as unbiased as possible. Conclusions Editors of SSH journals preferred the benefits of anonymized peer review over open peer and acknowledged the power they hold in the publication process during which authors are almost completely disclosed to editorial bodies. We recommend journals to communicate the transparency elements of their manuscript review processes by listing all bodies who contributed to the decision on every review stage.