Psychological science has come of age. But the rights of a mature discipline carry with them responsibilities, among them the responsibility to maximize confidence in our findings through good data practices and replication.
The November issue of Perspectives on Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science (APS), reflects the discipline's ongoing commitment to examine methodological issues that affect all areas of science — such as failures to replicate previous findings and problems of bias and error — with the goal of strengthening our discipline and contributing to the discussion that is taking place throughout science.
The issue features two special sections: one on replicability and one on research methods.
The special section on replicability brings together articles that examine the extent, causes, and solutions to some of the challenges faced by psychological science with regard to replication of research. The first nine articles in the section focus on diagnosing the problems within psychological science, while the next six articles discuss potential solutions. The aim of this special section is not to provide definitive answers, but to promote discussion and collective action to strengthen our science.
"We hope that the articles in this special section will not only be stimulating and pleasurable to read, but that they will also promote much wider discussion and, ultimately, collective actions that we can take to make our science more reliable and more reputable," write the section editors Harold Pashler of the University of California, San Diego and Eric-Jan Wagenmakers of the University of Amsterdam in The Netherlands.
The special section on research methods features articles that examine various aspects of research methodology, including the problem of false negatives and different approaches to detecting fraud. The section also includes a report on the goals, structure, and state of the Reproducibility Project from the Open Science Collaboration and a tongue-in-cheek take on questionable research practices in psychological science.
Because these topics are so important and so central to the scientific enterprise, APS is making the entire issue available to non-subscribers free for three months.
Association for Psychological Science: http://www.psychologicalscience.org
This press release was posted to serve as a topic for discussion. Please comment below. We try our best to only post press releases that are associated with peer reviewed scientific literature. Critical discussions of the research are appreciated. If you need help finding a link to the original article, please contact us on twitter or via e-mail.
Whether the issue is climate change, healthcare or gun control, libertarians are on a permanent collision course with evidence
Researchers live in dread of the null result—when a study turns up nothing. But that's exactly the wrong way to view things
We need a strong scientific voice in policy and decision-making, but there is also a crucial role for the public.
Donna Yates explains how her Lego female scientists became a Twitter hit
Scientific and political leaders need to focus more attention on the integrity of advisory processes, rather than taking sides in the political battles of the day
Publishing openly provides greater exposure, boosts prospects and can lead to more citations, says Erin McKiernan Open access: six myths to put to rest
Traditionally, science holds itself to account, primarily through internal systems of peer review. But the recent retraction of two papers on stem-cell research by the journal Nature highlights weaknesses in this self-regulatory framework that scientists need to address
The Royal Society has just launched a print-on-demand service so the public can easily purchase high quality prints of nature and scientific illustrations from its library and archives.
From the aerospace sector to Silicon Valley, engineering has a retention problem: Close to 40 percent of women with engineering degrees either leave the profession or never enter the field.
Criticized by a 7-year-old for gender bias, the toymaker's about-face is winning over fans