Are psychology journals anti-replication? A snapshot of editorial practices

Frontiers in Psychology

Volumn 8, Issue APR, 2017, Pages

  Martin, G N ^a   Clarke, Richard M ^b  

^a REGENT'S UNIVERSITY LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b LONDON SCHOOL OF HYGIENE AND TROPICAL MEDICINE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Journal editorial practices; P hacking; Psychology; Publication bias; Replication

Indexed keywords

EID: 85018260473     PISSN: None     EISSN: 16641078     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00523     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. American Psychological Society (2015). Replication in psychological science. Psychol. Sci. 26, 1827-1832. doi: 10.1177/0956797615616374
2. Begley, C. G., and Ellis, L. M. (2012). Improve standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature 483, 531-533. doi: 10.1038/483531a
3. Bozarth, J. D., and Roberts, R. R. (1972). Signifying significant significance. Am. Psychol. 27, 774-775. doi: 10.1037/h0038034
4. Brown, S. W., and Coney, K. A. (1976). Building a replication tradition in marketing. Marketing 1776, 622-625
5. Coursol, A., and Wagner, E. E. (1986). Effect of positive findings on submission and acceptance rates: a note on meta-analysis bias. Prof. Psychol. Res. Pract. 17, 136-137. doi: 10.1037/0735-7028.17.2.136
6. Earp, B. D., and Trafimow, D. (2015). Replication, falsification, and the crisis of confidence in social psychology. Front. Psychol. 6:621. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00621
7. Evanschitzky, H., and Armstrong, J. S. (2010). Replications of forecasting research. Int. J. Forecast. 26, 4-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ijforecast.2009.09.003
8. Evanschitzky, H., Baumgarth, C., Hubbard, R., and Armstrong, J. S. (2007). Replication research's disturbing trend. J. Bus. Res. 60, 411-415. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.12.003
9. Fanelli, D. (2010). "Positive" results increase down the hierarchy of the sciences. PLoS ONE 5:e10068. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0010068
10. Fanelli, D. (2011). Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries. Scientometrics 90, 891-904. doi: 10.1007/s11192-011-0494-7
11. Franco, A., Malhotra, N., and Simonovits, G. (2014). Publication bias in the social sciences: unlocking the file drawer. Science 345, 1502-1505. doi: 10.1126/science.1255484
12. Hubbard, R., and Armstrong, J. S. (1994). Replications and extensions in marketing: rarely published but quite contrary. Int. J. Res. Mark. 11, 233-248. doi: 10.1016/0167-8116(94)90003-5
13. Hubbard, R., and Vetter, D. E. (1991). Replications in the finance literature: an empirical study. Q. J. Bus. Econ. 30, 70-81
14. Hubbard, R., and Vetter, D. E. (1996). An empirical comparison of published replication research in accounting, economics, finance, management, and marketing. J. Bus. Res. 35, 153-164. doi: 10.1016/0148-2963(95)00084-4
15. Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited clinical research. JAMA 294, 218-228. doi: 10.1001/jama.294.2.218
16. Jones, K. S., Derby, P. L., and Schmidlin, E. A. (2010). An investigation of the prevalence of replication research in human factors. Hum. Factors 52, 586-595. doi: 10.1177/0018720810384394
17. Kerr, S., Tolliver, J., and Petree, D. (1977). Manuscript characteristics which influence acceptance for management and social science journals. Acad. Manag. J. 20, 132-141. doi: 10.2307/255467
18. Klein, R. A., Ratliff, K. A., Vianello, M., Adams, R. B. Jr., Bahník, Š., Bernstein, M. J., et al. (2014). Investigating variation in replicability. Soc. Psychol. 45, 142-152. doi: 10.1027/1864-9335/a000178
19. Laws, K. R. (2013). Negativland-a home for all findings in psychology. BMC Psychol. 1:2. doi: 10.1186/2050-7283-1-2
20. Makel, M. C., and Plucker, J. A. (2014). Facts are more important than novelty replication in the education sciences. Educ. Res. 43, 304-316. doi: 10.3102/0013189X14545513
21. Makel, M. C., Plucker, J. A., and Hegarty, B. (2012). Replications in psychology research how often do they really occur? Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 7, 537-542. doi: 10.1177/1745691612460688
22. Maxwell, S. E., Lau, M. Y., and Howard, G. S. (2015). Is psychology suffering from a replication crisis? Am. Psychol. 70, 487-498. doi: 10.1037/a0039400
23. Neuliep, J. W., and Crandall, R. (1990). Editorial bias against replication research. J. Soc. Behav. Pers. 5, 85-90
24. Neuliep, J. W., and Crandall, R. (1993a). Reviewer bias against replication research. J. Soc. Behav. Pers. 8, 21-29
25. Neuliep, J. W., and Crandall, R. (1993b). Everyone was wrong: there are lots of replications out there. J. Soc. Behav. Pers. 8, 1-8
26. Nosek, B. A., Spies, J. R., and Motyl, M. (2012). Scientific utopia: II. Restructuring incentives and practices to promote truth over publishability. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 7, 615-631. doi: 10.1177/1745691612459058
27. Open Science Collaboration (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Nature 349:aac4716. doi: 10.1126/science.aac4716
28. Pashler, H., and Harris, C. R. (2012). Is the replicability crisis overblown? Three arguments examined. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 7, 531-536. doi: 10.1177/1745691612463401
29. Pashler, H., and Wagenmakers, E. J. (2012). Editors' introduction to the special section on replicability in psychological science a crisis of confidence? Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 7, 528-530. doi: 10.1177/1745691612465253
30. Prinz, F., Schlange, T., and Asadullah, K. (2011). Believe it or not: how much can we reply on published data on potential drug targets? Nat. Rev. Drug Deliv. 10, 712-713. doi: 10.1038/nrd3439-c1
31. Reid, L. N., Soley, L. C., and Wimmer, R. D. (1981). Replication in advertising research: 977,1978, 1979. J. Advert. 10, 3-13. doi: 10.1080/00913367.1981.10672750
32. Rosenthal, R. (1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychol. Bull. 86, 638-641. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638
33. Schooler, J. (2011). Unpublished results hide the decline effect. Nature 470:437. doi: 10.1038/470437a
34. Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., and Simonsohn, U. (2011). False positive psychology: undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychol. Sci. 22, 1359-1366. doi: 10.1177/0956797611417632
35. Simons, D. J. (2013). The value of direct replication. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 9, 76-80. doi: 10.1177/1745691613514755
36. Smart, R. G. (1964). The importance of negative results in psychological research. Can. Psychol. 5a, 225-232. doi: 10.1037/h0083036
37. Sterling, T. D. (1959). Publication decisions and their possible effects on inferences drawn from tests of significance-or vice versa. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 54, 30-34. doi: 10.1080/01621459.1959.10501497
38. Sterling, T. D., Rosenbaum, W. L., and Weinkam, J. J. (1995). Publication decisions revisited: the effect of the outcome of statistical tests on the decision to publish and vice versa. Am. Stat. 49, 108-112. doi: 10.1080/00031305.1995.10476125