1. Comte A. Cours de philosophie positive Paris: Bachelier 1830
2. Simonton DK. Scientific status of disciplines, individuals, and ideas: Empirical analyses of the potential impact of theory. Review of General Psychology. 2006;10:98–112.
3. Cole S. The hierarchy of the sciences? American Journal of Sociology. 1983;89:111–139.
4. Lewes GH. London: Henry G. Bohn; 1853. Comte's philosophy of the sciences.
5. Whewell WDD. London: J.W.Parker; 1840. The philosophy of the inductive sciences.
6. Russell B. New York: W. W. Norton; 1929. Our knowledge of the external world.
7. Storer NW. Hard sciences and soft - Some sociological observations. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association. 1967;55:75–&. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
8. Conant J. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press; 1950. Harvard case studies in experimental science.
9. Zuckerman HA, Merton RK. Age, aging, and age structure in science. In: Storer N, editor. The Sociology of Science, by R K Merton. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1973. pp. 497–559.
10. Kuhn TS. Chicago: The University of chicago Press; 1970. The structure of scientific revolutions.
11. Cole S. New Brunswick, NJ: Transacton Publishers; 2001. What's wrong with sociology?
12. Humphreys P. A conjecture concerning the ranking of the sciences. Topoi-an International Review of Philosophy. 1990;9:157–160.
13. Biglan A. Characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1973;57:195–203.
14. Smart JC, Elton CF. Validation of the Biglan model. Research in Higher Education. 1982;17:213–229.
15. Malaney GD. Differentiation in graduate-education. Research in Higher Education. 1986;25:82–96.
16. Stoecker JL. The Biglan classification revisited. Research in Higher Education. 1993;34:451–464.
17. Laird TFN, Shoup R, Kuh GD, Schwarz MJ. The effects of discipline on deep approaches to student learning and college outcomes. Research in Higher Education. 2008;49:469–494.
18. Simonton DK. Psychology's status as a scientific discipline: Its empirical placement within an implicit hierarchy of the sciences. Review of General Psychology. 2004;8:59–67.
19. Best LA, Smith LD, Stubbs DA. Graph use in psychology and other sciences. Behavioural Processes. 2001;54:155–165. [PubMed] 20. Kubina RM, Kostewicz DE, Datchuk SM. An initial survey of fractional graph and table area in behavioral journals. Behavior Analyst. 2008;31:61–66. [PubMed]
21. Smith LD, Best LA, Stubbs DA, Johnston J, Archibald AB. Scientific graphs and the hierarchy of the sciences: A Latourian survey of inscription practices. Social Studies of Science. 2000;30:73–94.
22. Hedges LV. How hard is hard science, how soft is soft science - the empirical cumulativeness of research. American Psychologist. 1987;42:443–455.
23. Rosenberg A. Philosphy of science: A contemporary introduction. In: Moser PK, editor. Oxon, UK: Routledge; 2006.
24. Jary D, Julia J. Dictionary of Sociology. Glasgow Harper Collins 1991
25. Shipman MD. The limitations of social research. London Longman 1988
26. Latour B. When things strike back: a possible contribution of ‘science studies’ to the social sciences. British Journal of Sociology. 2000;51:107–123.
27. Bishop RC. The philosophy of the social sciences: An introduction (Paperback) London: Continuum International Publishing Group Ltd 2007
28. Collins H. We cannot live by scepticism alone. Nature. 2009;458:30–31. [PubMed]
29. Zammito JH. Chicago: Chicago University Press; 2004. A nice derangement of epistemes: Post-positivism in the study of science from Quine to Latour.
30. Becher T. Buckingham: Open University Press; 2001. Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines.
31. Collins HM, Pinch TJ. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1993. The Golem: What everyone should know about science.
32. Collins HM, Pinch TJ. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1998. The Golem at large: What you should know about technology.
33. Rzhetsky A, Iossifov I, Loh JM, White KP. Microparadigms: Chains of collective reasoning in publications about molecular interactions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2006;103:4940–4945. [PubMed]
34. Alatalo RV, Mappes J, Elgar MA. Heritabilities and paradigm shifts. Nature. 1997;385:402–403.
35. Langmuir I. Pathological science. Physics Today. 1989;42:36–48.
36. Cole S. Why sociology doesn't make progress like the natural sciences. Sociological Forum. 1994;9:133–154.
37. Collins Glasgow HarperCollins Publishers; 2003. Collins English dictionary.
38. Nickerson R. Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology. 1998;2:175–220.
39. Feigenbaum S, Levy DM. Research bias: Some preliminary findings. Knowledge and Policy: the International Journal of Knowledge Transfer and Utilization. 1996;9:135–142.
40. Loehle C. Hypothesis-testing in ecology - Psychological aspects and the importance of theory maturation. Quarterly Review of Biology. 1987;62:397–409. [PubMed] 41. Dwan K, Altman DG, Arnaiz JA, Bloom J, Chan A-W, et al. Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. PLoS ONE. 2008;3:e3081. [PMC free article] [PubMed] 42. Jennions MD, Moller AP. Publication bias in ecology and evolution: an empirical assessment using the ‘trim and fill’ method. Biological Reviews. 2002;77:211–222. [PubMed] 43. Kyzas PA, Denaxa-Kyza D, Ioannidis JPA. Almost all articles on cancer prognostic markers report statistically significant results. European Journal of Cancer. 2007;43:2559–2579. [PubMed]
44. Sterling TD, Rosenbaum WL, Weinkam JJ. Publication decisions revisited - The effect of the outcome of statistical tests on the decision to publish and vice-versa. American Statistician. 1995;49:108–112.
45. Ioannidis JPA. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine. 2005;2:696–701.
46. Menard S. Coefficients of determination for multiple logistic regression analysis. American Statistician. 2000;54:17–24.
47. Moller AP, Jennions MD. How much variance can be explained by ecologists and evolutionary biologists? Oecologia. 2002;132:492–500.
48. Palmer AR. Detecting publication bias in meta-analyses: A case study of fluctuating asymmetry and sexual selection. American Naturalist. 1999;154:220–233.
49. Leppanen OV, Sievanen H, Jarvinen TLN. Biomechanical testing in experimental bone interventions - May the power be with you. Journal of Biomechanics. 2008;41:1623–1631. [PubMed] 50. Woods SP, Rippeth JD, Conover E, Carey CL, Parsons TD, et al. Statistical power of studies examining the cognitive effects of subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation in Parkinson's disease. Clinical Neuropsychologist. 2006;20:27–38. [PubMed] 51. Breau RH, Carnat TA, Gaboury I. Inadequate statistical power of negative clinical trials in urological literature. Journal of Urology. 2006;176:263–266. [PubMed]
52. Jennions MD, Moller AP. A survey of the statistical power of research in behavioral ecology and animal behavior. Behavioral Ecology. 2003;14:438–445.
53. Maddock JE, Rossi JS. Statistical power of articles published in three health psychology-related journals. Health Psychology. 2001;20:76–78. [PubMed]
54. Meehl PE. Theoretical risks and tabular asterisks - Karl, Ronald, and slow progress of soft psychology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1978;46:806–834.
55. Press JS, Tanur JM. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2001. The subjectivity of scientists and the Bayesian approach.
56. Bunge M. The maturation of science. In: Lakatos I, Musgrave A, editors. Problems in the Philosphy of Science. Amsterdam: Norh-Holland Publishing Company; 1967.
57. Glaeser EL. Researcher Incentives and Empirical Methods. NBER Technical Working Paper Series; 2006. National Bueau of Economic Research Technical Working Paper Series.
58. Jeng M. Bandwagon effects and error bars in particle physics. Nuclear Instruments & Methods in Physics Research Section a-Accelerators Spectrometers Detectors and Associated Equipment. 2007;571:704–708.
59. Klein JR, Roodman A. Blind analysis in nuclear and particle physics. Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science. 2005;55:141–163.
60. Marsh DM, Hanlon TJ. Seeing what we want to see: Confirmation bias in animal behavior research. Ethology. 2007;113:1089–1098.
61. Rosenthal R. New York: Irvington Publishers, Inc.; 1976. Experimenter effects in behavioural research. Enlarged edition.
62. Barber TX. Elmsford, New York: Pergamon Press Inc.; 1976. Pitfalls in human research.
63. Song F, Eastwood AJ, Gilbody S, Duley L, Sutton AJ. Publication and related biases. Health Technology Assessment. 2000;4 [PubMed] 64. Kerr NL. HARKing: Hypothesizing after the results are known. Personality and Social Psychology Review. 1998;2:196–217. [PubMed]
65. Zelder M. Why the con hasn't been taken out of econometrics. Eastern Economic Journal. 2008;34:115–125.
66. Adams D, Pimple KD. Research misconduct and crime: Lessons from criminal science on preventing misconduct and promoting integrity. Accountability in Research. 2005;12:225–240. [PubMed]
67. Montgomerie B, Birkhead T. A beginner's guide to scientific misconduct. ISBE Newsletter. 2005;17:16–24.
68. Wible JR. Fraud in science: An economic approach. Philosophy of the Social Sciences. 1992;22:5–27. [PubMed] 69. Fanelli D. How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS One. 2009;4:e5738. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
70. Popper KR. London: Hutchinson; 1959. The logic of scientific discovery. Popper KS, Freed J, Freed L, translator.
71. Hendry DF. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2000. Econometrics - Alchemy or science?
72. Szasz T. The pretense of psychology as science: The myth of mental illness in Statu Nascendi. Current Psychology. 2006;25:42–49.
73. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A, Lang AG. Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods. 2009;41:1149–1160. [PubMed]