APS and its editors are aware of concerns with “Declines in Religiosity Predict Increases in Violent Crime—but Not Among Countries With Relatively High Average IQ,” & are examining the article & review process. We welcome all comments/criticisms psci@psychologicalscience.org
-
It should never be done on topic alone, but I agree with
@wgervais that it would be cowardly of a journal to not investigate its own possible review shortcomings in the face of significant challenges to the quality of the data.
I agree that psych journals need to investigate shortcomings in the review process, such as the pervasive ideological bias against any results that don't conform to the Overton window. We should start there. Agreed?
-
-
Geoffrey, I'm not here to argue ideology. All I'm saying is that when concerns are raised about the quality of review (and let's face it, there are some concerns here), I think editors need to take it seriously and I commend those who do.
-
This will likely only happen for controversial papers, as they have higher impact potential and will attract more eyes to look at the data. But I have no problem doing it for any topic that is of high relevance. So major errors on liberal bias would count too if raised.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.