A Short (Personal) Future History of Revolution 2.0

Perspectives on Psychological Science

Volumn 10, Issue 6, 2015, Pages 886-899

  Spellman, Barbara A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA   (United States)

Author keywords

journal practices; methodology; replication; scientific practices

Indexed keywords

ACCESS TO INFORMATION; BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; HISTORY; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; PROCEDURES; PSYCHOLOGY; PUBLISHING; TRENDS; UNITED STATES;

ACCESS TO INFORMATION; BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; HISTORY, 20TH CENTURY; HISTORY, 21ST CENTURY; HUMANS; PSYCHOLOGY; PUBLISHING; RESEARCH DESIGN; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84947444838     PISSN: 17456916     EISSN: 17456924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1745691615609918     Document Type: Editorial

References (80)

1. American Psychological Association. (2001). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
2. American Psychological Association. (2009). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
3. E.M.Anicich (2014). What lies within: Superscripting references to reveal research trends. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9, 682–691.
4. M.BakkerA.van DijkJ.M.Wicherts (2012). The rules of the game called psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 543–554.
5. D.J.Bem (2003). Writing the empirical journal article. In J.M.DarleyM.P.ZannaH.L.RoedigerIII (Eds.), The compleat academic: A practical guide for the beginning social scientist (2nd ed., pp. 171–201). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
6. D.J.Bem (2011). Feeling the future: Experimental evidence for anomalous retroactive influences on cognition and affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 407–425.
7. A.K.Bones (2012). We knew the future all along: Scientific hypothesizing is much more accurate than other forms of precognition. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 307–309.
8. S.L.BraverF.J.ThoemmesR.Rosenthal (2014). Continuously cumulating meta-analysis and replicability. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9, 333–342.
9. M.BuhrmesterT.KwangS.D.Gosling (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk a new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data?Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3–5.
10. F.ClarkD.L.Illman (2006). A longitudinal study of the New York Times Science Times Section. Science Communication, 27, 496–513. doi:10.1177/1075547006288010
11. J.Cohen (1962). The statistical power of abnormal-social psychological research: A review. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 65, 145–153.
12. J.Cohen (1994). The earth is round (p <.05). American Psychologist, 49, 997–1003.
13. G.Cumming (2014). The new statistics: Why and how. Psychological Science, 25, 7–29.
14. E.Eich (2014). Business not as usual. Psychological Science, 25, 3–6.
15. C.Engel (2015). Scientific disintegrity as a public bad. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10, 361–379.
16. D.Fanelli (2010). “Positive” results increase down the Hierarchy of the Sciences. PLoS ONE, 5(3). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0010068
17. D.Fanelli (2011). Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries. Scientometrics, 90, 891–904.
18. C.J.FergusonM.Heene (2012). A vast graveyard of undead theories: Publication bias and psychological science’s aversion to the null. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 555–561.
19. K.Fiedler (2011). Voodoo correlations are everywhere—Not only in neuroscience. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 163–171.
20. K.FiedlerF.KutznerJ.I.Krueger (2012). The long way from α-error control to validity proper: Problems with a short-sighted false-positive debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 661–669.
21. S.FinchN.ThomasonG.Cumming (2002). Past and future American Psychological Association guidelines for statistical practice. Theory & Psychology, 12, 825–853.
22. R.C.FraleyS.Vazire (2014). The N-pact factor: Evaluating the quality of empirical journals with respect to sample size and statistical power. PLoS ONE, 9(10), e109119. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0109019
23. G.Francis (2012). The psychology of replication and replication in psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 585–594.
24. H.M.FuchsM.JennyS.Fiedler (2012). Psychologists are open to change, yet wary of rules. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 639–642.
25. J.GalakT.Meyvis (2011). The pain was greater if it will happen again: The effect of anticipated continuation on retrospective discomfort. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140, 63–75.
26. J.GalakT.Meyvis (2012). You could have just asked: Reply to Francis (2012). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 595–596.
27. R.Giner-Sorolla (2012). Science or art? How aesthetic standards grease the way through the publication bottleneck but undermine science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 562–571.
28. A.G.Greenwald (1976). An editorial. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 1–7.
29. A.G.Greenwald (2012). There is nothing so theoretical as a good method. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 99–108.
30. A.G.GreenwaldR.GonzalezR.J.HarrisD.Guthrie (1996). Effect sizes and p-values: What should be reported and what should be replicated?Psychophysiology, 33, 175–183.
31. J.HenrichS.J.HeineA.Norenzayan (2010). The weirdest people in the world?Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 33, 61–83.
32. J.P.A.Ioannidis (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine, 2(8), e124. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
33. J.P.A.Ioannidis (2012). Why science is not necessarily self-correcting. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 645–654.
34. L.K.JohnG.LoewensteinD.Prelec (2012). Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychological Science, 23, 524–532. doi:10.1177/0956797611430953
35. N.L.Kerr (1998). HARKing: Hypothesizing after the results are known. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 196–217.
36. G.King (1995). Replication, replication. PS: Political Science & Politics, 28, 444–452.
37. T.Kuhn (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
38. A.LedgerwoodJ.W.Sherman (2012). Short, sweet, and problematic? The rise of the short report in psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 60–66.
39. Levelt Committee. (2012, November28). Flawed science: The fraudulent research practices of social psychologist Diederik Stapel. Retrieved from http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/pubman/item/escidoc:1569964/component/escidoc:1569967/Eindrapport_Commissie_Levelt.pdf
40. G.R.Loftus (1993a). Editorial comment. Memory & Cognition, 21, 103.
41. G.R.Loftus (1993b). A picture is worth a thousand p values: On the irrelevance of hypothesis testing in the microcomputer age. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 25, 250–256.
42. D.T.Lykken (1968). Statistical significance in psychological research. Psychological Bulletin, 70(3, Pt. 1), 151–159.
43. M.C.MakelJ.A.PluckerB.Hegarty (2012). Replications in psychology research: How often do they really occur?Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 537–542. doi:10.1177/1745691612460688
44. P.E.Meehl (1967). Theory-testing in psychology and physics: A methodological paradox. Philosophy of Science, 103–115.
45. J.L.Mills (1993). Data torturing. The New England Journal of Medicine, 329, 1196.
46. B.A.NosekG.AlterG.C.BanksD.BorsboomS.D.BowmanS.J.BrecklerT.. Yarkoni (2015). Promoting an open research culture. Science, 348, 1422–1425. doi:10.1126/science.aab2374
47. B.A.NosekY.Bar-Anan (2012). Scientific utopia: I. Opening scientific communication. Psychological Inquiry, 23, 217–243.
48. B.A.NosekD.Lakens (Eds.). (2014). Special issue: Replications of important results in social psychology. Social Psychology, 45, 137–252.
49. B.A.NosekJ.R.SpiesM.Motyl (2012). Scientific utopia: II. Restructuring incentives and practices to promote truth over publishability. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 615–631.
50. National Science Foundation. (2015). Social, behavioral, and economic sciences perspectives on robust and reliable science: Report of the subcommittee on replicability in Science Advisory Committee to the National Science Foundation Directorate for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/AC_Materials/SBE_Robust_and_Reliable_Research_Report.pdf
51. Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349, 6251. doi:10.1126/science.aac4716
52. Open Science Framework. (2015). Course syllabi for open and reproducible methods. Retrieved from https://osf.io/vkhbt/
53. H.PashlerC.Harris (2012). Is the replicability crisis overblown? Three arguments examined. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 531–536.
54. H.PashlerE.-J.Wagenmakers (Eds.). (2012). Special section on replicability in psychological science: A crisis in confidence?Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 528–687.
55. J.Priem (2013, March28). Scholarship: Beyond the paper. Nature, 495, 437–440. doi:10.1038/495437a
56. K.A.RanganathB.A.SpellmanJ.A.Joy-Gaba (2010). Cognitive “category-based induction” research and social “persuasion” research are each about what makes arguments believable: A tale of two literatures. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 115–122.
57. R.Rosenthal (1979). The “file drawer problem” and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 638–641.
58. W.W.Rozeboom (1960). The fallacy of the null-hypothesis significance test. Psychological Bulletin, 57, 416–428.
59. U.Schimmack (2012). The ironic effect of significant results on the credibility of multiple-study articles. Psychological Methods, 17, 551–566. doi:10.1037/a0029487
60. P.SedlmeierG.Gigerenzer (1989). Do studies of statistical power have an effect on the power of studies?Psychological Bulletin, 105, 309–316.
61. J.P.SimmonsL.N.NelsonU.Simonsohn (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22, 1359–1366.
62. D.J.SimonsA.O.HolcombeB.A.Spellman (2014). An introduction to registered replication reports at Perspectives on Psychological Science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9, 552–555. doi:10.1177/1745691614543974
63. U.SimonsohnL.D.NelsonJ.P.Simmons (2014). P-curve: A key to the file drawer. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 534–547.
64. B.A.Spellman (2010). Letter from the incoming editor. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 3–4. doi:10.1177/1745691609356780
65. B.A.Spellman (2012a). Introduction to the special section: Data, data, everywhere.. Especially in my file drawer. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 58–59. doi:10.1177/1745691611432124
66. B.A.Spellman (2012b, December8). Research Revolution 1.0—Let’s move on. Retrieved from https://morepops.wordpress.com/2012/12/08/research-revolution-1-0-lets-move-on/
67. B.A.Spellman (2012c). Scientific utopia.. or too much information? Comment on Nosek and Bar-Anan. Psychological Inquiry, 23, 303–304.
68. B.A.Spellman (2013a, August26). Barcelona—and should Revolution 2.0 go grassroots? Retrieved from https://morepops.wordpress.com/2013/08/26/barcelona-and-should-revolution-2-0-go-grassroots/
69. B.A.Spellman (2013b, March5). But I don’t want people to try to replicate my research. Retrieved from https://morepops.wordpress.com/2013/03/05/but-i-dont-want-people-to-try-to-replicate-my-research/
70. B.A.Spellman (2013c, February27). My first post-revolution action letter. Retrieved from https://morepops.wordpress.com/2013/02/27/my-first-post-revolution-action-letter/
71. B.A.Spellman (2013d, May27). Research Revolution 2.0—The Current “crisis”: How technology got us into this mess and how technology will help us out. Retrieved from https://morepops.wordpress.com/2013/05/27/research-revolution-2-0-the-current-crisis-how-technology-got-us-into-this-mess-and-how-technology-will-help-us-out/
72. B.A.Spellman (2013e). There is no such thing as replication but we should do it anyway. Comment on “Recommendations for increasing replicability in psychology.”European Journal of Personality, 27, 120–144. doi:10.1002/per.1920
73. B.A.Spellman (2015). Introduction to the special section on methods: Odds and end. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10, 359–360.
74. T.D.Sterling (1959). Publication decisions and their possible effects on inferences drawn from tests of significance—Or vice versa. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 54, 30–34.
75. T.SturmA.Mülberger (2012). Crisis discussions in psychology—New historical and philosophical perspectives. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 43, 425–433.
76. B.A.TeachmanM.I.NortonB.A.Spellman (2015). Memos to the president from a “council of psychological science advisers.”Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10, 697–700.
77. S.Vazire (2015). Editorial. Social Psychological & Personality Science. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1948550615603955
78. E.VulC.HarrisP.WinkielmanH.Pashler (2009). Puzzlingly high correlations in fMRI studies of emotion, personality, and social cognition. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 274–290.
79. E.J.WagenmakersR.WetzelsD.BorsboomH.L.van der MaasR.A.Kievit (2012). An agenda for purely confirmatory research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 632–638.
80. E.Yong (2012, May16). Replication studies: Bad copy. Nature. Retrieved from http://www.nature.com/news/replication-studies-bad-copy-1.10634