Pretty big news. Psychological Science is seriously discussing 3 new reform initiatives. They are outlined in a letter being circulated by Eric Eich, editor of the journal, and they come from a working group that includes top people from APS and several other scientists who have been active in working for reforms.
After reading it through (which I encourage everybody to do), here are my initial takes on the 3 initiatives:
Initiative 1: Create tutorials on power, effect size, and confidence intervals. There’s plenty of stuff out there already, but if PSci creates a good new source and funnels authors to it, it could be a good thing.
Initiative 2: Disclosure statements about research process (such as how sample size was determined, unreported measures, etc.) This could end up being a good thing, but it will be complicated. Simine Vazire, one of the working group members who is quoted in the proposal, puts it well:
We are essentially asking people to “incriminate” themselves — i.e., reveal information that, in the past, editors have treated as reasons not to publish a paper. If we want authors to be honest, I think they will want some explicit acknowledgement that some degree of messiness (e.g., a null result here and there) will be tolerated and perhaps even treated as evidence that the entire set of findings is even more plausible (a la [Gregory] Francis, [Uli] Schimmack, etc.).
I bet there would be low consensus about what kinds and amounts of messiness are okay, because no one is accustomed to seeing that kind of information on a large scale in other people’s studies. It is also the case that things that are problematic in one subfield may be more reasonable in another. And reviewers and editors who lack the time or local expertise to really judge messiness against merit may fall back on simplistic heuristics rather than thinking things through in a principled way. (Any psychologist who has ever tried to say anything about causation, however tentative and appropriately bounded, in data that was not from a randomized experiment probably knows what that feels like.)
Another basic issue is whether people will be uniformly honest in the disclosure statements. I’d like to believe so, but without a plan for real accountability I’m not sure. If some people can get away with fudging the truth, the honest ones will be at a disadvantage.
3. A special submission track for direct replications, with 2 dedicated Associate Editors and a system of pre-registration and prior review of protocols to allow publication decisions to be decoupled from outcomes. A replication section at a journal? If you’ve read my blog before you might guess that I like that idea a lot.
The section would be dedicated to studies previously published in Psychological Science, so in that sense it is in the same spirit as the Pottery Barn Rule. The pre-registration component sounds interesting — by putting a substantial amount of review in place before data are collected, it helps avoid the problem of replications getting suppressed because people don’t like the outcomes.
I feel mixed about another aspect of the proposal, limiting replications to “qualified” scientists. There does need to be some vetting, but my hope is that they will set the bar reasonably low. “This paradigm requires special technical knowledge” can too easily be cover for “only people who share our biases are allowed to study this effect.” My preference would be for a pro-data, pro-transparency philosophy. Make it easy for for lots of scientists to run and publish replication studies, and make sure the replication reports include information about the replicating researchers’ expertise and experience with the techniques, methods, etc. Then meta-analysts can code for the replicating lab’s expertise as a moderator variable, and actually test how much expertise matters.
My big-picture take. Retraction Watch just reported yesterday on a study showing that retractions, especially retractions due to misconduct, cause promising scientists to move to other fields and funding agencies to direct dollars elsewhere. Between alleged fraud cases like Stapel, Smeesters, and Sanna, and all the attention going to false-positive psychology and questionable research practices, psychology (and especially social psychology) is almost certainly at risk of a loss of talent and money.
Getting one of psychology’s top journals to make real reforms, with the institutional backing of APS, would go a long way to counteract those negative effects. A replication desk in particular would leapfrog psychology past what a lot of other scientific fields do. Huge credit goes to Eric Eich and everyone else at APS and the working group for trying to make real reforms happen. It stands a real chance of making our science better and improving our credibility.
2 thoughts on “Psychological Science to publish direct replications (maybe)”
As a recent social science PhD in the private sector now (Google) — I can assure you that what you say about talent is true. I left the field almost entirely because I felt the game was rigged and wanted to come by my paycheck more honestly. And I know at least a handful of talented researchers who did the same thing. Relatively speaking, I’m one of the lucky ones – I often think about current grad students and fresh PhD who must be having a really really hard time knowing what they should do. They are seeing their peers, not to mention young and senior faculty who have already ascended the academic ladder using questionable practices. These proposals are all well and good but what are those students to do with their research programmes? Many of them are totally screwed by the current system and have no hope of recourse. Examples: all the grad students who have tried to replicate fake findings and waste their time, grad students who do legit research but get messy data and can’t publish it anywhere because all the artificially inflated stuff ends up in top journals, grad students who were pressured by advisors to do bad stuff and now have nothing but crap data, etc. Its like steroids in baseball–even if only a few are using it systematically distorts everyone else’s incentives. What I want to know is how have the hiring committees changed what candidates they look at? How long is reform going to take and what is the field going to do about this lost generation?
Nice ! My phsycology is disturbing me though !
Comments are closed.