Why does every paper have to offer a new theory of how the world works? Did we already establish all of the existing theories? Because I don't really think we have, and new and better evidence addressing open questions is probably good and should be valued.
Why I appreciate DeAndrea and Colbert (2017) for including falsification and extending the range of existing theories as theoretical pursuits. Such things are not "merely descriptive."
Improved communication clarity is needed in the presentation and critical evaluation of proposed theory advancements in the field of communication. We encourage communication scholars to be more ex...
It cuts both ways. The dopamine hit of novelty isn't worth the failure to produce basic (social) science. On the other hand, I'm constantly finding deserts in political science where there are no useful explanations for political phenomenon.
Currently responding to a review that contends my hypotheses are only derived from previous research. So for normative and self-interested reasons, I strongly agree.
A hill I will join you and die on.
Because they have to reject 97% of them and that's generally the most accessible excuse
It seems like showing a theory has substantive consequences should be quite the advance!
Very true! Recently got desk-rejected with a paper based on using diff-in-diff to test an often-cited theoretical argument (finding no support for the argument), with the editor arguing the manuscript mainly needed more advancement and further development of theory. Seems to be quite common