Replicability? Not That Again

• Published in: Psychology of aesthetics, creativity, and the arts Vol. 8; no. 1; pp. 21 - 23
• Main Authors: Smith, Jeffrey K., Smith, Lisa F.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Educational Publishing Foundation 01-02-2014; American Psychological Association
• Subjects: Experimental Replication; Human; Methodology; Null Hypothesis Testing; Peer Evaluation; Statistical Significance; Statistics
• ISSN: 1931-3896; 1931-390X
• DOI: 10.1037/a0035821

Comments on the original article by Matthew Makel (see record 2014-06823-002) which takes on the laudable task of assessing the state of scientific progress in psychology and having found it wanting, of suggesting what we might do to enhance the enterprise. Makel focuses on the problems of replication, researchers changing their hypotheses to fit their results (and related questionable research practices), lack of statistical power in studies, failure to make public predictions prior to publication concerning research findings, and the lack of a more centralized system for reviewing research. The current authors thank Matt for his yeoman work here, and as researchers, reviewers, and former journal editors, we are sympathetic to much of it. Well, they are sympathetic to some of it. OK, they are openly hostile to important parts of it, but they thank Matt nonetheless for raising important questions and offering bold solutions. The authors beg to differ, but they admire the effort. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2017 APA, all rights reserved)