The question I want to ask was inspired by this Meta post. Specifically, it was asking if "conjecture questions" should require some degree of support before they can be asked. One thing that came up was the Skeptics SE requirement that questions like this address "notable claims":

One area that is tricky for new users who ask questions, is that we aren't that interested in spending effort researching answers to ideas that no-one actually believes. We want to confirm or disprove real claims that many people think are true. Therefore, we ask that questions address notable claims.

I want to ask if this standard also applies to psychology research. I know that there's been more of a push lately to publish research that supported (or failed to reject) the null hypothesis (and that there are even journals who focus entirely on the topic): do journals typically have some kind of "notability requirement" for such articles like what was stated above? Are studies that disprove a non-notable claim worth publishing?

Is this question too subjective, poorly worded but salvageable, or acceptable for the main site? How can I word this in a way that won't be closed and/or downvoted into oblivion?

  • 1
    I believe (my opinion, which is in line with the answer of mfloren) is that any research that will be published is/should be notable. That is, the issue you are researching should be a real thing, there should be some proof/logical argumentation for the existence of that issue, and people should want to know about this issue. This is also called the relevance of a study. May 23, 2017 at 11:47
  • 1
    The interesting thing (and the reason I would like to keep this question here) is that the same goes for questions here on CogSci. There should be some initial research that argues for the relevance (or existence) of a question. "I've once heard/read" is often not considered to be notable enough, but, similar to this question, an example like "On site X/ blog Y/ newpaper Z they say ..." is very often a nice basis for a question. May 23, 2017 at 11:50

1 Answer 1


Do journals typically have some kind of "notability requirement"

I think this could be specified... First, we should focus on psych journals (seems like you are in your question). Second, though this could have empirical support, it is somewhat opinion based (different editors, researchers, etc. will have different thoughts). Perhaps "Does the Journal of Applied Psychology currently have some kind of notability requirement?" may be a more specific question, and less likely to be closed. These types of questions may also be a good fit for https://academia.stackexchange.com/.

Consider that literature reviews in general may, to some degree, be considered a "notability requirement".

Are studies that disprove a non-notable claim worth publishing?

This question is almost certainly opinion based. Perhaps requesting current perspectives and arguments on the issue may be a better way to phrase the question (as a list of current perspectives could be provided without opinion). Again, though, this may be a better fit for https://academia.stackexchange.com/ (especially if you are looking at the issue broadly).

As a final note, these questions may not have a lot to relate them. If this is the case, they should be listed as separate questions.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .