Are Psychology Journals Anti-replication? A Snapshot of Editorial Practices

Martin, G N and Clarke, Richard ORCID: 0000-0002-1060-3142 (2017) Are Psychology Journals Anti-replication? A Snapshot of Editorial Practices. Frontiers in Psychology, 8. Art 523. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00523

Preview

Text 10982 Martin & Clarke (2017)Are Psychology Journals Anti-replication.pdf - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution 4.0. Download (262kB) | Preview

Abstract

Recent research in psychology has highlighted a number of replication problems in the discipline, with publication bias – the preference for publishing original and positive results, and a resistance to publishing negative results and replications- identified as one reason for replication failure. However, little empirical research exists to demonstrate that journals explicitly refuse to publish replications. We reviewed the instructions to authors and the published aims of 1151 psychology journals and examined whether they indicated that replications were permitted and accepted. We also examined whether journal practices differed across branches of the discipline, and whether editorial practices differed between low and high impact journals. Thirty-three journals (3%) stated in their aims or instructions to authors that they accepted replications. There was no difference between high and low impact journals. The implications of these findings for psychology are discussed.

Item Type:	Article
Article Type:	Article
Subjects:	B Philosophy. Psychology. Religion > BF Psychology
Divisions:	Schools and Research Institutes > School of Education and Science
Research Priority Areas:	Health, Life Sciences, Sport and Wellbeing
Depositing User:	Richard Clarke
Date Deposited:	12 May 2022 10:57
Last Modified:	31 Aug 2023 09:04
URI:	https://eprints.glos.ac.uk/id/eprint/10982

University Staff: Request a correction | Repository Editors: Update this record