Crisis in Psychology?

[vulcanlogician]

It seems that not being able to replicate results should, long term, make this a self-solving issue; if a particular finding can’t be replicated, it should have a winnowing effect on bad science. Any professional journal that publishes a non-replicable study should be required to repudiate that paper within a specified time frame (two years sounds about right). Something along the lines of:

‘In our April 2020 issue, we published the work of Dr. Emilio Hungaduna, et al (‘The Lachrymotic Effects Of Downward Tropism In 24 Months’ Post Neonates’). Since then, several other research teams have either refuted or failed to replicate Hungadunga’s results. To that end, this journal no longer supports the conclusions of Dr. Hungaduna’s team.’

Or better yet, publish those very studies that contradict the previous results and give those hard-working individuals who bothered to try to replicate the experiment some recognition of their own.

I agree that publication bias (in all fields) is a problem. Negative results are still results.

Exactly. Perceiving positive results as more significant than negative results stems from our (understandable) human biases and a desire for science to "progress." But this perspective is less objective than one that values negative and positive results equally. I think any scientist would agree with this sentiment. But the existence of publication bias itself reminds us that this principle doesn't fully demonstrate itself in practice.

---

And how do you propose to get a better accuracy/reliability rate? Who should decide what is reliable and what is hogwash? What is reliable on one society/culture will not be reliable in another (consider various Chinese medicine practices). As far as I know review and replication  of published studies is the best tool. It might be slow and clunky but I can't think of a better option.

We get a better replication rate by emphasizing replication more than we do. We emphasize new discoveries. Getting published is easier if you have some groundbreaking or eyebrow-raising result. I think the system being oriented that way has made our overall publications less reliable.

A small number of psychologists have even been caught manipulating results to make them more "publishable." The point I'm making is not that fraud is bad. (Of course fraud is bad.) The point I'm making is that it's problematic when we "desire" a certain kind of result that we deem fit for publication. Science ought to be more objective. A result is a result.

The "system" does have its merits, though. When a visionary, like Einstein, publishes a truly groundbreaking idea (Like Special Relativity) they are awarded more prestige and resources so they might go on to make even greater discoveries (like General Relativity). Einstein certainly deserved to be held aloft and given accolades for his work. But we don't want to award groundbreaking work at the expense of credible science. That would unravel the entire idea that makes it all worthwhile in the first place.

Maybe the integrity of the publishers should be scrutinized closer. I typically limit my psych info to reliable sources but I'm not sure how that would happen with the general population and access to the internet. Posting crap does not usually hurt publisher financially (financial being the driving force in the past). How would anyone stop the woo woo that gets posted and then sent to other's that will buy into the  woo woo?

Lets face it, there will always be a certain percent of any population that believes unfounded shit, no mater where it comes from.   Do I really need to point at religion or snake oil salesmen as an example?

We want to hold our academic journals to a higher standard than what the general public gleans from the internet, don't we? That's my point. Luckily, even at an 85% replicability rate, that puts psychology journals head and shoulders above what passes for fact on the internet. All I'm saying is that 85% is disturbingly low, and it suggests that something in the publication apparatus possibly needs attention and/or adjustment.