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
When I was editor at Emotion, we got concerned about the way candidate gene papers were being reviewed. And since we didn't have anyone on hand with expertise, I invited an outside author team to examine what we were doing and point out shortcomings (and published it in 2015).
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes
That's a totally legit way to improve the quality of reviewing, and I'd have no trouble with that.
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.