Wikiversity talk:Publishing original research

From Wikiversity

In original research material, there is a distinction to be made between original research and original hypotheses. Papers of the former sort normally include research results and conclusions, whereas papers of the latter kind include only an original hypothesis and optionally suggestions for how to test it. Since there is a great deal more creative thinking going on than experimentation, naturally, I would expect a great many more papers that present only new hypotheses without any testing. This just fine by me. I would like to see a great deal more collaboration in the refinement of original hypotheses.

Wikeversity should and does allow papers of both sorts, and both types should be available for peer review. Peer review of an original hypothesis paper can include, for example, critical discussion of 1) how well the paper establishes connections between the new hypothesis and previous research and established consensus; 2) how well the derivation of the new idea is explained and justified, 3) the strength of the suggestions made for testing (verification or falification) of the new hypothesis; and 4) any suggested improvements to the proposed testing. This can be extremely valuable in the development of valid tests and avoiding expensive experimental design errors.

Since both types of papers are important, I think we need a method to flag which type of paper is being submitted. (The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mrfunding (talk • contribs) 04:39, 24 February 2008.)