No, Chronicle, Psychology has just come up with something really NIFTY
I’ve linked to the Open Science replication project before, and it has been written up well. Replicability is one of those corner stones of science that just isn’t always as rewarded as it ought to be, and this is a way to actually bring it to the forefront. So what if things don’t all replicate. What is the estimate I’ve read some time (David Hull perhaps) of the amount of science that actually leads somewhere interesting in the end? 10% perhaps? Nature of the business. And, this should not be a problem. You do science you are somewhere where no one has gone before kinda, so you are bound to be mistaken.
The chronicle is being kind of overwrought about this. A bit like those NYT writeups of new social trends of the authors closes 5 friends (that nobody else understands, but it is so fun to make fun of those, so they fill a place). Doing this work is a GOOD THING. It is not a threat to psychology. Not doing it would threaten it, though.
Brian Nosek gave a good response on that blog.
But there was a lot of concern on e-mail this morning, and I understand this. I do psychology. We research framing, and persuasion all the time. This is important.
One of them was very concerned that this may impact funding. Evidently in his state there is a lobby from psychiatrists against psychologists because they are not evidence based enough. I find that ironic, since this post have gotten me onto the twitter feeds of serious critique of psychiatry.
Fixing science is not just about “those” soft fields. There are system problems all over.
I say, Cheers to the Open Science replication project. May there be more of them!