Revising hypotheses does not indicate a flawed approach. Reply to Bolhuis and Macphail.

MacDougall-Shackleton SA, Ball GF

DOI: 10.1016/s1364-6613(00)01847-7
Published: 2002 Feb 1
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/s1364-6613-00-01847-7,
  title = {Revising hypotheses does not indicate a flawed approach. Reply to Bolhuis and Macphail.},
  author = {MacDougall-Shackleton SA and Ball GF},
  year = {2002},
  journal = {Trends in cognitive sciences},
  doi = {10.1016/s1364-6613(00)01847-7},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/s1364-6613(00)01847-7}
}

RIS

TY  - JOUR
TI  - Revising hypotheses does not indicate a flawed approach. Reply to Bolhuis and Macphail.
AU  - MacDougall-Shackleton SA
AU  - Ball GF
PY  - 2002
JO  - Trends in cognitive sciences
DO  - 10.1016/s1364-6613(00)01847-7
UR  - https://doi.org/10.1016/s1364-6613(00)01847-7
ER  -

APA

SA, M., & GF, B. (2002). Revising hypotheses does not indicate a flawed approach. Reply to Bolhuis and Macphail.. Trends in cognitive sciences. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1364-6613(00)01847-7

Source records

pubmed · retrieved 2026-09-26T02:31:57.443Z