Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T15:22:18.429Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The crisis from above: Gatekeepers need better standards

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2022

Sarah R. Schiavone Open the ORCID record for Sarah R. Schiavone [Opens in a new window] ,
Julia G. Bottesini Open the ORCID record for Julia G. Bottesini [Opens in a new window]  and
Simine Vazire Open the ORCID record for Simine Vazire [Opens in a new window]
Sarah R. Schiavone
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of California, Davis, CA95616, USAsschiavone@ucdavis.edu, jbottesini@ucdavis.edu, https://sschiavone.com/, https://juliabottesini.wordpress.com/
Julia G. Bottesini
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of California, Davis, CA95616, USAsschiavone@ucdavis.edu, jbottesini@ucdavis.edu, https://sschiavone.com/, https://juliabottesini.wordpress.com/
Simine Vazire
Affiliation:
Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, 3010, Australia. simine.vazire@unimelb.edu.au, http://simine.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Improvements to the validity of psychological science depend upon more than the actions of individual researchers. Editors, journals, and publishers wield considerable power in shaping the incentives that have ushered in the generalizability crisis. These gatekeepers must raise their standards to ensure authors' claims are supported by evidence. Unless gatekeepers change, changes made by individual scientists will not be sustainable.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 45 , 2022 , e30
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Campbell, D. T. (1984). Can we be scientific in applied social science? In Connor, R. F., Altman, D. G., & Jackson, C. (Eds.), Evaluation studies review annual (Vol. 9, pp. 26–48). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Simons, D. J., Shoda, Y., & Lindsay, S. (2017). Constraints on generality (COG): A proposed addition to all empirical papers. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(6), 1123–1128. doi:10.1177/1745691617708630CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed