In 2008, Science published a paper which found that conservatives had a stronger physiological response to threat (which has since been cited more than 500 times), then more recently desk-rejected a failed replication with a sample size 4 times as large 🙃
If we want to actually fix science, we should start by considering Science.
"We believe that it is bad policy for journals like Science to publish big, bold ideas and then leave it to subfield journals to publish replications showing that those ideas aren’t so accurate after all." via
We Tried to Publish a Replication of a Science Paper in Science. The Journal Refused
Thanks for publishing our article "We Tried to Publish a Replication of a Science Paper in Science. The Journal Refused."
Study finding conservatives are more driven by reaction to perceived threats continues to be influential. What you may not have heard is that it didn't replicate
'We believe that it is bad policy for journals like Science to publish big, bold ideas and then leave it to subfield journals to publish replications showing that those ideas aren’t so accurate after all.'
We tried to publish a replication of a Science paper in Science. The journal refused.
Scientific journals have an ethical obligation to publish high-quality failed replications of papers they originally published. The situation we are in now is very bad
Troubling: “We believe that Science has a responsibility to set the record straight in the same way that a newspaper does when it publishes something that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. We were rebuffed without a reason ...” ⤵️
"When researchers submitted to Science a paper attempting (and failing) to replicate a high profile result in social psychology (previously published by Science), they were told: “not interested.” That’s bad. Really bad."
Refutation of Mooney's 'Republican Brain'
If we want to actually fix science, we should start by considering Science.
"Open and transparent science can only happen when journals are willing to publish results that contradict previous findings."
“We Tried to Publish a Replication of a Science Paper in Science. The Journal Refused.”
"Open science can only happen when journals are willing to publish results that contradict previous findings...We need courage to let beautiful theories die public deaths at the hands of ugly facts." But top journals routinely desk-reject non-replications
Are liberal and conservative ideologies due in part to how the brain is wired? New study fails to #replicate groundbreaking paper and declines to publish . #replication #replicationcrisis #psychology
Here's a crazy idea: maybe if the standards for statistical significance in these fields were higher, this kind of thing wouldn't happen in the first place.
Science needs to get rid of Science. First, big claim from modest sample size is promoted by glam magazine prestige. Then, replication with bigger sample size shows it's probably not so. Glam magazine response? Not novel enough, go publish elsewhere.
It's rare that I'd recommend reading something on Slate, but this is very telling: it shows not only the problem of latching on to the findings of contemporary science, but also the problems in academic publishing.
#We believe that it is bad policy for journals like [ ] to publish big, bold ideas and then leave it to subfield journals to publish replications showing that those ideas aren’t so accurate after all.”
"We Tried to Publish a Replication of a Science Paper in Science. The Journal Refused." Sad to say but this is standard practice in academia.
This! "[I]t is bad policy for journals like to publish big, bold ideas and then leave it to subfield journals to publish replications showing that those ideas aren’t so accurate after all." In : 1/2
"Have the courage to let our beautiful theories die public deaths at the hands of ugly facts," argue , , and in .
One key part of replication crisis: “ it is bad policy for journals like Science to publish big, bold ideas and then leave it to subfield journals to publish replications showing that those ideas aren’t so accurate after all.” ⁦
"We believe that it is bad policy for journals like Science to publish big, bold ideas and then leave it to subfield journals to publish replications showing that those ideas aren’t so accurate after all" via
“Our research suggests that the theory that conservatives and liberals respond differently to threats isn’t actually true.” via
"We believe that it is bad policy for journals like Science to publish big, bold ideas and then leave it to subfield journals to publish replications showing that those ideas aren’t so accurate after all."
“Science requires us to have the courage to let our beautiful theories die public deaths at the hands of ugly facts.”
“We believe that it is bad policy for journals like Science to publish big, bold ideas and then leave it to subfield journals to publish replications showing that those ideas aren’t so accurate after all” ht
What happens when 'ugly facts trump beautiful theories' and submitted to replication studies.
If we want to actually fix science, we should start by considering Science. via
Thanks Slate for publishing this! If we want to actually fix science, we should start by considering Science. via @3ienews
Very difficult to fix the scientific record. When HIF journals only want to publish exciting but probably false findings, and not the more mundane but better replications. Conclusion is obvious: Science is a shit tier journal. It's click-bait publishing.
Here’s an important Q: if prestigious journal publishes paper stating X, are they obligated to publish paper showing not X? via
"Science requires us to have the courage to let our beautiful theories die public deaths at the hands of ugly facts."
Does a new scientific observation stand the tests of replication and time? Interesting piece on an example where it did not and how scientific publishing reacted
Journals fail to consider studies that contravene prior publications. But it is particularly sad when it happens at the very top journals. Worth reading. 1/2 HT
If we want to actually fix science, we should start by considering Science. via
"it is bad policy for journals like to publish big, bold ideas and then leave it to subfield journals to publish replications showing that those ideas aren’t so accurate after all." agree! via
"To the contrary, members of the original author team...were very supportive of the entire process, a reflection of the understanding that science requires us to go where the facts lead us. If only journals like Science were willing to lead the way."
"We believe that it is bad policy for journals like Science to publish big, bold ideas and then leave it to subfield journals to publish replications showing that those ideas aren’t so accurate after all"
Is there a name for the tendency of some high-profile journals to publish shiny results with low sample size, but refuse to entertain #replication studies with much higher sample size? ⁦⁩ your readership deserves better.
“We Tried to Publish a #Replication of a Science Paper in Science. The Journal Refused.”
"Open and transparent science can only happen when journals are willing to publish results that contradict previous findings"
If we want to actually fix science, we should start by considering Science. via
Can someone confirm that the handling editor has now blocked the authors of this failed replication on ?
If we want to actually fix science, we should start by considering Science. via
"We tried to publish a replication of a Science paper in Science. The journal refused." #replication #academicpublishing
Come on, , you can and should do better: "We Tried to Publish a Replication of a Science Paper in Science. The Journal Refused." . Thanks for bringing this to #ScienceTwitter:
If we want to actually fix science, we should start by considering Science. via