Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-6bnxx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-29T06:01:43.277Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

To make innovations such as replication mainstream, publish them in mainstream journals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 July 2018

Boris Egloff
Boris Egloff*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, D-55099, Germany. egloff@uni-mainz.dehttp://www.ppd.psychologie.uni-mainz.de/62.php
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It was a pleasure to read Zwaan et al.'s wise and balanced target article. Here, I use it as a shining example for bolstering the argument that to make innovations such as replication mainstream, it seems advisable to move the debates from social media to respected “mainstream” psychology journals. Only then will mainstream psychologists be reached and, we hope, convinced.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 41 , 2018 , e126
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Duarte, J. L., Crawford, J. T., Stern, C., Haidt, J., Jussim, L. & Tetlock, P. E. (2015) Political diversity will improve social psychological science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 38:e130. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X14000430.Google Scholar
Lakens, D. (2017) Five reasons blog posts are of higher scientific quality than journal articles. Blog post. Available at: http://daniellakens.blogspot.de/2017/04/five-reasons-blog-posts-are-of-higher.html.Google Scholar
Nelson, L. D., Simmons, J. P. & Simonsohn, U. (2018) Psychology's renaissance. Annual Review of Psychology 69:511–34. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011836.Google Scholar
Nosek, B. A. & Bar-Anan, Y. (2012) Scientific utopia: I. Opening scientific communication. Psychological Inquiry 23:217–43. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2012.692215.Google Scholar
Open Science Collaboration (2015) Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science 349(6251):aac4716. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716.Google Scholar
Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D. & Simonsohn, U. (2011) False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science 22:1359–66. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611417632.Google Scholar
Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D. & Simonsohn, U. (2018) False-positive citations. Perspectives on Psychological Science 13(2):255–59.Google Scholar
Vul, E., Harris, C., Winkielman, P. & Pashler, H. (2009) Puzzlingly high correlations in fMRI studies of emotion, personality, and social cognition. Perspectives on Psychological Science 4:274–90. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01125.x.Google Scholar