Go here and read. There’s an impact! Science seem to be changing!
I’m a little embarrassed to admit it – but the first post-revolution action letter I’ve seen is one I got as an author, not one that I sent as an action editor.
What do I mean by a post-revolution action letter? I mean one that incorporates some of the scientific values that we have been vigorously discussing in psychology over the past year. (E.g., in the PerspectivesNovember special issue.) In particular, I mean the values of not creating post-hoc hypothesis, replicating surprising results, publishing interesting studies (and replications) regardless of how they turn out.
I was the fourth author on an empirical paper with one experiment that included a priming manipulation and some messy results that did NOT confirm our initial hypothesis but did suggest something else interesting. What did the action letter (and reviewers) say?
1) After noting that the research was interesting, the reviewers called for…
View original post 141 more words
