Scientificity

Definition Scientificity

This is understood to mean a systematic approach that is based on scientific principles. From an epistemological perspective, such principles can be described by four central aspects, irrespective of the content and research methods of the respective scientific discipline:

• the scientific way of working,
• formulating scientific statements,
• the scientific attitude and
• integrity in Dealing with Assumptions and Criticism.

It is precisely the scientific attitude and the honest handling of basic assumptions that define an essential aspect of ethics (see there), which is not included in the general definitions of science.

Scientific way of working

The criteria for scientific work, which are applied appropriately with each other, are:

• Transparent and comprehensive documentation
• Systematically analysing your own data material
• Analysing statements made by means of verification and falsification

Furthermore:

• possible bias factors are adequately considered and
• developed an updating review concept for error correction.

Scientific work therefore follows a system that can be learnt. The findings of the work can be applied to questions and problems that are based on similar facts.

Formulating scientific statements

A scientific statement is scientific if it is:

• linguistically precise, clear and
• logically consistent, and
• can be checked with the appropriate expertise.

It also has:

• substantiated arguments that are consistent with your own data and
• which can be derived from them.

The scientific attitude

This is open to well-founded criticism. One's own argumentation is always provisional, not absolute and final, but correctable. On the contrary, it is desirable to make mistakes and correct them in order to constantly improve oneself and the work as a whole.

The attitude is characterised by honesty

• The protagonists' statements and actions are consistent,
• important information is always made accessible and
• Nothing is withheld or concealed for personal (or other) motives.

Data, statements and analyses are also taken note of by opponents, especially if they contradict their own position and views.

The company's own data is not falsified or embellished in order to generate and propagate desired statements in advance. For this reason, they are made available for critical external review: Peer review process.[1]

Integrity in Dealing with Assumptions and Criticism

When dealing with critical data and statements, the focus is on improving the findings themselves and promoting the work as a whole - regardless of the result, one's own person or prevailing opinion.

The key questions for dealing with criticism are based on the concept of constructive contribution:

• "What exactly is it about?" - The first question analyses the content of the criticism and examines its meaning.
• "Who criticises why?" - The second question is aimed at the context and motive of the criticism.
• "What use is it?" - The third question looks for value and content.
• "How does it help to move forward?" - The fourth question focusses on feasibility.

Carefully observed phenomena, whose interrelations are insufficiently researched, are acknowledged openly and respectfully. They are considered provisionally unexplained. This ensures that they remain in their original observational form, with minimal distortion, thus allowing for unimpeded access in future processes of gaining insight and knowledge.

Statements labelled as tentative assumptions are neither categorically negated and excluded nor adopted without verification. A justifying theory construction is also omitted.

Credible sources and source criticism

Especially in academic writing, the credibility of publications is crucial to the validity of their statements. Over time, several criteria have been established for this purpose, which are also essential when conducting source research and analysis.

General attributes

This includes the general conditions and compliance with the basic procedures.

The author is considered an expert in his or her field; in addition to a solid education, he or she has extensive professional expertise, which includes, in particular, empirical knowledge in his or her specialist field. In the scientifically orientated world, the H-index[2] is used as a measure and weighting factor for the influence of the respective author.

The relevance of the research topic in general and the relevance of the work for the respective research are presented in terms of how groundbreaking and significant the respective work is for the overall understanding, in that decisive information is contained in the publication that advances the research as a whole.

All information is verifiable, all sources, data and evidence are verifiable.

The methodology complies with applicable standards, including peer review, i.e. the examination of statements by other experts.

The sources used are comprehensive and up-to-date, the latest research is taken into account, outdated sources are labelled and their significance verified.

When using online sources, attention should be paid to the legal notice, editorial information, and the origin of the content. Reputable websites with an imprint and well-known publishers are often more reliable.

Source research

A scientifically credible source is characterised by accuracy, objectivity, verifiability and the expertise of the author. It should be as up-to-date as possible, be highly relevant to the topic, have undergone peer review if possible and comply with the applicable scientific publication standard.
Source research therefore follows a systematic approach in order to select the sources used. For this purpose, authenticity, significance and relevance are checked.

Credible sources - the Reliable Sources

In order to assess the credibility of sources in general, three aspects are considered:

• the authenticity,
• the informative value
• and the relevance.

In accordance with the applicable standards for academic literature, a distinction is made between:

• primary sources, the original works,
• secondary sources, i.e. historical or contemporary analyses of the primary sources.

In this way, criteria for the further development of homeopathic pharmacology can be defined on the basis of scientific methodology. A reference list of sources checked in this way is in preparation. (insert document). The processing takes place in several steps of source criticism.

Criticism of Sources | Verification of Sources

Systematic source criticism as a differentiated methodology:

1. 1. The collection of materials (heuristics),
   2. source criticism and
   3. the interpretation of sources.

The critique is meant to assess the truthfulness of the presented source. It focuses solely on potential limitations of the factual accuracy of the provided information.

Source criticism takes the form of formal source criticism, which examines the framework of the source, and content-related source criticism, which examines the plausibility and the applicable academic standards.

Formal source Criticism

Formal source criticism clarifies the facts:

• When was the source created?
• Where was it created?
• Who created them?
• Is the named author really the creator?
• Is the source preserved as it was created by the creator?
• Is the information provided by the creator based on their own observations, knowledge, etc.? If not, what is the creator relying on?

Substantive Criticism

Criticism of the content of a source examines the credibility of the statements. It examines the plausibility of the documentation and the consistency of the conclusions.

• Can the creator of the source know the information presented? Where is the horizon of the knowledge of his time, that which can / could really be known?
• What is the intention of the creator of the source? Does it provide an as accurate as possible transmission of information?
• Does the creator himself consider the information he conveys to be factual and does he justify this? Or does he know that they are false?
• What special features are necessary for understanding the content? Are the relevant technical rules observed?

Source Interpretation

After analysis and correct historical classification, source criticism leads to a judgment - the interpretation of the source. There are three key questions that form the basis of every source interpretation and systematically interpret the significance of the source:

• State of knowledge: What can be clearly explained according to current knowledge?
• Factual judgment: What is the content of the information?
• Value judgment: What is the actual use of the information? Is it essential or dispensable?

Selection of historical sources

In many scientific fields, the evaluation and categorisation of historical sources is also necessary and essential. Special criteria for the selection and examination of sources apply here:

• The availability of the source
• Generally accessible literature
• Documentation of the source is created and made available
• Documented practical and theoretical expertise of the
• Accuracy and precision in terminology and description
• Criteria are named according to the historical epoch
• Credibility, transparent and sufficiently comprehensive documentation is available
• According to the historical epoch, it must be defined what can be considered evidence and what can be considered proof
• Translations and revisions require documented care in the revision process
• Comprehensible rules for transcribing and referencing sources when editing historical sources

Selection of currently important sources

If the research area is subject to particular historical conditions e.g. publications on

• Philosophy of science in different epochs,
• pioneering medical literature,
• specific specialised literature in defined areas, e.g. publications on older clinical studies or historical homeopathic literature,

additional criteria apply for the pre-selection of sources that must be found for scientific processing in order to take the respective works into account.

The recognised, subject-specific methodology should be adhered to in a comprehensible manner throughout the work at the time of publication, including:

• Description of the methodology and evaluation.
• The type and extent of methodological application are clearly defined.

Current scientific standards must be adhered to in a context appropriate to the material:

• for basic research and
• clinical research.

A separate analysis is required according to the historical epoch.

In clinical research, verifiable ethical guidelines are adhered to, which applies to:

• The currently applicable methodological criteria for case studies and cohort studies,
• And for the scope of clinical epidemiological and quasi-experimental studies.

The consistency and logical consistency of the argumentation is particularly important in the evaluation whenever the application of current standards is not possible or not appropriate. The particular context of use should then be described precisely.

---

[1] Peer review means that the work is scrutinised for errors and inconsistencies by independent experts in the same field. The peers check the quality, methodology and validity of the research results against the applicable criteria before they are published. This can also be done anonymously before publication in scientific journals, as is customary in interest-led and interest-funded research.

[2] H-index: Index number from the number of scientific publications and the associated citation frequency

---

Authors: glt | Rev.: TBD | Ed.: pz | last modified May 21, 2025