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
-
-
Replying to @PsychScience
I remember when
@PsychScience was formed in 1988 because@APA had moved too far away from objective scientific inquiry. This kind of gutless, craven behavior will force real psychological scientists to abandon@PsychScience & form yet another a new society for the same reasons.8 replies 10 retweets 86 likes -
There are quite serious methodological and statistical flaws in this paper. Revisiting published work in light of that is the part of scientific inquiry that lets us claim it’s occasionally self correcting. To not subject published work to scrutiny would be gutless and craven.
6 replies 0 retweets 125 likes -
Replying to @wgervais @primalpoly and
Publishing a new paper is fine, but speaking as an editor, it will do little to correct deficiencies in the review process if they exist (to be determined). There's nothing wrong with a journal taking a look at its process when significant concerns about the data are pointed out.
3 replies 1 retweet 14 likes -
Replying to @daviddesteno @wgervais and
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.1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @daviddesteno @wgervais and
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?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @primalpoly @wgervais and
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @daviddesteno @primalpoly and
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 reply 1 retweet 2 likes
Sounds fair, in principle. In practice, what counts as 'controversial' is determined by the culture's ideology & power politics, including whoever can mobilize the most strident activist campaigns to intimidate scientists and journals. E.g. the campaign to discredit this paper.
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.