Are most positive findings in psychology research false?
An activist perspective" James Coyne PhD
Documented examples of outright fraud increase scepticism about the trustworthiness of findings in psychological research. While outright fraud could be rare, different types of research bias and “flexible” rules of design and analysis are rampant and even implicitly encouraged by research journals seeking newsworthy articles. Efforts at reform have met with considerable resistance.
This talk will describe the work of one loosely affiliated group to advance reform by focusing attention not only on the quality of existing research, 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 research journal editors, and enforce transparency and greater reliance on public post-publication review of claims and data. Other initiatives are occurring to increase the trustworthiness of the literature, but they may actually serve to deter more basic changes in the institutional support and individual incentives favouring 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.