Science or Art? How Aesthetic Standards Grease the Way Through the Publication Bottleneck but Undermine Science
Top Cited Papers
Open Access
- 7 November 2012
- journal article
- research article
- Published by SAGE Publications in Perspectives on Psychological Science
- Vol. 7 (6), 562-571
- https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612457576
Abstract
The current crisis in psychological research involves issues of fraud, replication, publication bias, and false positive results. I argue that this crisis follows the failure of widely adopted solutions to psychology’s similar crisis of the 1970s. The untouched root cause is an information-economic one: Too many studies divided by too few publication outlets equals a bottleneck. Articles cannot pass through just by showing theoretical meaning and methodological rigor; their results must appear to support the hypothesis perfectly. Consequently, psychologists must master the art of presenting perfect-looking results just to survive in the profession. This favors aesthetic criteria of presentation in a way that harms science’s search for truth. Shallow standards of statistical perfection distort analyses and undermine the accuracy of cumulative data; narrative expectations encourage dishonesty about the relationship between results and hypotheses; criteria of novelty suppress replication attempts. Concerns about truth in research are emerging in other sciences and may eventually descend on our heads in the form of difficult and insensitive regulations. I suggest a more palatable solution: to open the bottleneck, putting structures in place to reward broader forms of information sharing beyond the exquisite art of present-day journal publication.This publication has 51 references indexed in Scilit:
- Raise standards for preclinical cancer researchNature, 2012
- Reforming Science: Methodological and Cultural ReformsInfection and Immunity, 2012
- Too good to be true: Publication bias in two prominent studies from experimental psychologyPsychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2012
- Feeling the future: Experimental evidence for anomalous retroactive influences on cognition and affect.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2011
- Why Current Publication Practices May Distort SciencePLoS Medicine, 2008
- Exploring the Cold-to-Hot Empathy Gap in SmokersPsychological Science, 2008
- Selective Publication of Antidepressant Trials and Its Influence on Apparent EfficacyThe New England Journal of Medicine, 2008
- Why Most Published Research Findings Are FalsePLoS Medicine, 2005
- The Evolution of Sex Differences in Jealousy: Failure to Replicate Previous ResultsJournal of Research in Personality, 2000
- Publication Decisions Revisited: The Effect of the Outcome of Statistical Tests on the Decision to Publish and Vice VersaThe American Statistician, 1995