Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

Documented examples of outright fraud increase skepticism about the trustworthiness of what is found in the psychological literature. While outright fraud could be rare, confirmatory bias and flexible rules of design and analysis are rampant and even encouraged by journals seeking newsworthy articles. Efforts at reform meet with considerable resistance and defense of the status quo. This talk will describe the work of one loosely affiliated group to advance reform by focusing attention not only on the quality of the existing literature, but on the social and political processes at the level of editing and reviewing. It will give specific examples of ongoing efforts to dilute the absolute authority of editors and prepublication reviewers, and enforce transparency and greater reliance on post-publication peer review of claims and reanalysis of shared data. Other, formal replication initiatives are occurring in psychology to increase the trustworthiness of the literature. However, though well intended, they may actually serve to deter more basic changes in the institutional support and individual incentives favoring false and exaggerated claims. An alternative policy of direct confrontation with editors and journals and repeat-offender authors and outing of undisclosed conflicts of interest may be needed if change is to be achieved.