Why Replication Initiatives Will Not Salvage the Trustworthiness of Psychology
A PR campaign is rebranding Psychological Science as being at the forefront of improving the credibility of psychology as a science rather than a barrier. It is time to restate my skepticism.
Images of Sanford and Son are now in the public domain.
Bad publication practices keep good scientists unnecessarily busy, as in replicability projects.- Björn Brembs
In 2013, University of Herefordshire Professor of Neuropsychology Keith R. Laws announced in the Guardian that he was a section editor of a new journal, BMC Psychology. Keith stated:
With the launch of BMC Psychology on Wednesday, our journal policy is to offer a dedicated open-access forum for psychologists to publish work deemed by peer reviewers " … to be a coherent and sound addition to scientific knowledge and to put less emphasis on interest levels."
This remit unquestionably includes null results and replications and the more central role they must play within the discipline. We cannot avoid the conclusion that psychologists, editors, and reviewers have conspired to deny the rightful place of negative results and the importance of replication – psychology's dirty little secrets. We must change.
I knew and respected K…