Read on Twitter
When the journal “Psychological Science” publishes pseudoscience, and then “vigorously defends the editorial process to which the [pseudoscience] in question was subjected,” it validates claims that psychology is not a science.
This editorial hurts the scientific community.
... https://twitter.com/psychscience/status/1275162883928752128
![When the journal “Psychological Science” publishes pseudoscience, and then “vigorously defends the editorial process to which the [pseudoscience] in question was subjected,” it validates claims that psychology is not a science.This editorial hurts the scientific community.... https://twitter.com/psychscience/status/1275162883928752128](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EbK1hKAU0AAEWYm.jpg "When the journal “Psychological Science” publishes pseudoscience, and then “vigorously defends the editorial process to which the [pseudoscience] in question was subjected,” it validates claims that psychology is not a science.This editorial hurts the scientific community.... https://twitter.com/psychscience/status/1275162883928752128")
This editorial hurts the scientific community.
... https://twitter.com/psychscience/status/1275162883928752128
Your position is an insult to psychological science as a discpline, and to every person who has dedicated their time, money, and life to the study of psychology (and to science and the people who have benefited from it more generally). You should be ashamed of yourselves.
...
...
Many scientists on Twitter identified these issues *very quickly* in their *free time*, in many cases covering these issues in what would amount to a no more than 1-2 pages of writing.
...
...
These weren’t difficult issues to spot. They’re ordinary issues that should always be checked for. They’re some of the first issues Psychology students learn about during undergraduate studies. A first year research methods class could pick this data apart. Why couldn’t you?
...
...
Here are some of the criticisms of the Clark et al. paper. @FelixChaser was nice enough to collect them together for the rest of us (thanks Felix!):
... https://twitter.com/felixchaser/status/1275004862716014592
... https://twitter.com/felixchaser/status/1275004862716014592
And if threads on Twitter don’t meet your oh-so-rigourous standards for peer-review, well guess what—there are published criticisms of the data going back 16 years.
(Thanks for sharing @CathrynTownsend!)
... https://twitter.com/cathryntownsend/status/1275174366993678339
(Thanks for sharing @CathrynTownsend!)
... https://twitter.com/cathryntownsend/status/1275174366993678339
There are no “alternative perspectives” on this data. It’s bad data. Everyone has acknowledged that now—including the authors who previously defended it, and the people criticizing the decison to retract. Alternative perspectives on this data are akin to “alternative facts.”
...
...
There is no place for “alternative facts” in science. This truth should be self-evident to anyone that isn’t a charlatan parading around as a scientist. I’m not the only one who thinks this. @JPdeRuiter says it quite eloquently here:
... https://twitter.com/jpderuiter/status/1249692290542600196
... https://twitter.com/jpderuiter/status/1249692290542600196
That Clark et al.’s paper went through 3 rounds of “comprehensive review” without “two members of the Psychological Science editorial team and four independent reviewers” identifying the obvious issues with the data (or “alternative perspectives” as you call them) suggests...
Suggests that @PsychScience’s editorial process is not as comprehensive as you believe it is. Your failure to own up to this suggests that you arent capable of doing your job to the standards described in @C0PE’s Code of Conduct for Journal Editors ( https://publicationethics.org/files/Code_of_conduct_for_journal_editors_Mar11.pdf).
...
...
If @PsychScience refuses to address the flagrant issues with its editorial process then the journal should be retired, lest it continue to harm the reputation of psychological scientists and the status of psychology as a science.
...
...
Here’s a suggestion on how to improve your editorial process:
“All papers submitted to @PsychScience will be reviewed by a classroom of 1st year psyc students, to ensure that we don’t let any dumbass issues through that anyone with minimal training in psyc could spot.”
...
“All papers submitted to @PsychScience will be reviewed by a classroom of 1st year psyc students, to ensure that we don’t let any dumbass issues through that anyone with minimal training in psyc could spot.”
...
And here’s another:
“All authors submitting empirical papers to @PsychScience must have received ethical approval by their institution’s IRB, regardless of whether the authors collected their data or used public data. Papers not meeting this criteria will be desk-rejected.”
...
“All authors submitting empirical papers to @PsychScience must have received ethical approval by their institution’s IRB, regardless of whether the authors collected their data or used public data. Papers not meeting this criteria will be desk-rejected.”
...
And in the spirit of self-reflection, I’d like to invite anyone who has read through this thread to tell me—do you think I went overboard with my criticisms of Psychological Science’s response, or are my criticisms fair?
