Comment on: History repeating: guidelines to address common problems in psychedelic science
Therapeutic Advances in Psychopharmacology January 1, 2024 DOI: 10.1177/20451253241243242 (opens in new tab) via OpenAlex
Summary
AI-generated from the abstractA commentary responds to a call for greater methodological rigor in psychedelic research, agreeing that studies should adhere to principles of internal, external, and construct validity. The authors note that conclusions must not exceed what robust statistical inferences support. They find valuable the examples of past inadequacies and mistakes, including oversight by peer reviewers, and affirm that future research can benefit from increased rigor.
Study at a glance
| Characteristics | Commentary Peer reviewed |
|---|---|
| Keywords | Psychiatry Medicine Psychology Data science Computer science |
| Citations | 7 |
| Key finding | Argues that van Elk and Fried's call for rigor in psychedelic research is welcome and that future studies can benefit from adhering to principles of internal, external, and construct validity. |
Abstract
The call for rigor by van Elk and Fried 1 is a welcome contribution to psychedelic research.The authors emphasized the well-known principles of internal, external, and construct validities, highlighting that conclusions should not extend beyond robust statistical inferences.The examples of previous inadequacies and mistakes regarding some of these principles, including oversight by peer reviewers, are valuable, and future research can indeed benefit from more rigor.