BMC Psychology pledges 'to put less emphasis on interest levels' and publish repeat studies and negative results
By Keith Laws
The Guardian, Notes & Theories
Originally published February 27, 2013
In 2005, the epidemiologist John Ioannidis provocatively claimed that "most published research findings are false". In the field of psychology – where negative results rarely see the light of day – we have a related problem: there is the very real possibility that many unpublished, negative findings are true.
Psychologists have an aversion to some essential aspects of science that they perceive to be unexciting or less valuable. Historically, the discipline has done almost nothing to ensure the reliability of findings through the publication of repeat studies and negative ("null") findings.
Psychologists find significant statistical support for their hypotheses more frequently than any other science, and this is not a new phenomenon. More than 30 years ago, it was reported that psychology researchers are eight times as likely to submit manuscripts for publication when the results are positive rather than negative.
Unpublished, "failed" replications and negative findings stay in the file-drawer and therefore remain unknown to future investigators, who may independently replicate the null-finding (each also unpublished) - until by chance, a spuriously significant effect turns up.
The entire story is here.
