An examination of model validation practices in the peer-reviewed transportation literature published between 2014 and 2018 reveals that 92% of studies reported goodness-of-fit statistics, and 64.6% reported some sort of policy-relevant inference analysis. However, only 18.1% reported validation performance measures, out of which 78% (14.2% of all studies) consisted of internal validation and 22% (4% of all studies) consisted of external validation. The proposition put forward in this paper is that the reliance on goodness-of-fit measures rather than validation performance is unwise, especially given the dependence of the transportation research field on observational (non-experimental) studies. Model validation should be a non-negotiable part of presenting a model for peer-review in academic journals. For that purpose, we propose a simple heuristic to select validation methods given the resources available to the researcher.

在2014年至2018年之间发表的同行评审运输文献中对模型验证实践进行的检查显示，有92％的研究报告了拟合优度统计数据，而64.6％的研究报告了某种与政策相关的推理分析。但是，只有18.1％报告了验证绩效指标，其中78％（占所有研究的14.2％）由内部验证组成，而22％（占所有研究的4％）由外部验证组成。本文提出的主张是，依靠拟合优度度量而不是验证性能是不明智的，特别是考虑到运输研究领域对观察（非实验）研究的依赖。模型验证应该是在学术期刊中提出供同行评审的模型的不可商议的部分。为了这个目的，