Replicability: The good, the really good, and the ugly

The good:

Our European Journal of Personality paper proposing ways to improve the replicability of research in psychology is in press.  You can find a copy here.  The EJP editor is soliciting comments and the entire package should be published soon.

The really good:

A slew of papers on replicability in psychological science is now available in the November issue Perspectives on Psychological Science.  The entire issue is a must read.

Greg Francis has another paper in Psychonomic Bulletin and Review that provides a most brilliant analysis of why even simple, direct replication is not an answer to our problems.

And, as many of you have seen, the editors at Psychological Science circulated a letter outlining some reasonable, if modest proposals for changes to the journal that are described succinctly by Sanjay Srivastava on his blog, The Hardest Science.

For the first time in a long while, things might actually be moving in the right direction. I’m sure Nate Silver could have predicted that.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Replicability: The good, the really good, and the ugly

  1. This is a cliff hanger… what about the ugly?

  2. Pingback: Speaking of replication… | funderstorms

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s