Table 1

Analysis of The Journal of Neuroscience Research Articles

StartEndHyp-EHyp-IAlt Hyp# TestsSupportRejectDiscQuesComp
3250X6X
5159X25XX
6072X7XX
7492X7X
93107X6X
108119X
120136X7X
137148X38XX
149157X25XX
158172X28XX
173182X25X
183199X9X
200219X
220231X
232244X7X
245256X17XX
263277X17XX
278290X
291307X7X
308322X17XX
322334X7X
335346X
347362X
363378X6X
379397X18XX
398408X
409422X14X
423440X38XX
441451X29XX
452464X6X
465473X8X
474483X9X
484497X19XX
498502X
518529X8X
530543X
548554X18X
555574X9X
575585X8X
586594X
595612X13XX
613630X17XX
631647X8X
648658X6X
659678X35X
679690X.5X
691709X
710722X
723732X15XX
733744X
745754X14X
755768X5X
  • Classification of research reports published in The Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 38, issues 1–3, 2018, identified by page range (n = 52). An x denotes that the paper was classified in this category. Categories were: Hyp-E: at least one hypothesis was fairly explicitly stated; Hyp-I: at least one hypothesis could be inferred from the logical organization of the paper and its conclusions, but was not explicitly stated; Alt-Hyp: at least one alternative hypothesis in addition to the main one was tested; # Tests: is an estimate of the number of experiments that critically tested the major (not subsidiary or other) hypothesis; Support: the tests were consistent with the main hypothesis; Reject: at least some tests explicitly falsified at least one hypothesis; Disc: a largely “discovery science” report, not obviously hypothesis-based; Ques: experiments attempted to answer a series of questions, not unambiguously hypothesis-based; Comp: mainly a computational modeling study, experimental data were largely material for model.