The nativist-empiricist debate is broken.

Quilty-Dunn J, Wood JN

DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2026.08.004
Published: 2026 Sep 11
Container: Trends in cognitive sciences
Publisher: Not recorded
Open access: unknown

Credibility signals

limited evidence Score 43/100 under policy 1.0.0. This is a metadata assessment, not a judgment of the paper's conclusions.

Show all credibility signals

cautionDOI registered: No matching Crossref record was present in this response. Source: Crossref; license: CC0 metadata
cautionDOI resolves: No matching Crossref record was present in this response. Source: Crossref; license: CC0 metadata
not scoredDirectory of Open Access Journals: No matching DOAJ record was present in this response. No allow-list match; this is not evidence of low credibility. Source: DOAJ; license: CC0
not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete. Source: Retraction Watch; license: CC BY 4.0
not scoredRetraction Watch expression of concern: No expression of concern notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete. Source: Retraction Watch; license: CC BY 4.0
not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete. Source: Retraction Watch; license: CC BY 4.0
not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete. Source: Retraction Watch; license: CC BY 4.0
not scoredOpen access status: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made. Source: No authority result supplied; license: Unknown
not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored. Source: Normalized work metadata; license: Caller-provided; provenance license not supplied to scorer
cautionMetadata completeness: 5 of 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present; missing fields increase uncertainty. Source: Normalized work metadata; license: Caller-provided; provenance license not supplied to scorer

Cite this work

BibTeX

@article{allodium:10.1016/j.tics.2026.08.004,
  title = {The nativist-empiricist debate is broken.},
  author = {Quilty-Dunn J and Wood JN},
  year = {2026},
  journal = {Trends in cognitive sciences},
  doi = {10.1016/j.tics.2026.08.004},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2026.08.004}
}

RIS

TY  - JOUR
TI  - The nativist-empiricist debate is broken.
AU  - Quilty-Dunn J
AU  - Wood JN
PY  - 2026
JO  - Trends in cognitive sciences
DO  - 10.1016/j.tics.2026.08.004
UR  - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2026.08.004
ER  -

APA

J, Q., & JN, W. (2026). The nativist-empiricist debate is broken.. Trends in cognitive sciences. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2026.08.004

Source records

pubmed · retrieved 2026-09-25T16:21:24.017Z