Fits here too. Perhaps better.
The open science project for social psychology (hey, let me just remind you, you can join!) is having an interesting discussion about editors/journals role in the systemic issues of science that (perhaps) allowed people like Stapel to thrive. You know, people who need to be watched so they don’t sneak the cookies (bet he would not have waited for the proverbial marshmallow), who does not feel like Lew and Uri Simonsohn (and me, and all of the people at open science) that science just is more fun when it is TRUE.
They want to look into the editorial pracices, given that there has been reports that editors have encouraged better narratives (although they may not be as scrupulously true as intended), and suggested leaving off measures that lead to nowhere, in the name of narrative, of clarity etc. Which, actually, is not necessarily bad goals. We should not try to…
View original post 463 more words