Martin G N, Clarke Richard M
School of Psychotherapy and Psychology, Faculty of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences, Regent's University LondonLondon, UK.
Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical MedicineLondon, UK.
Front Psychol. 2017 Apr 11;8:523. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00523. eCollection 2017.
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.
近期心理学领域的研究凸显了该学科中存在的一些重复研究问题，其中发表偏倚——倾向于发表原创性和阳性结果，而抵制发表阴性结果和重复研究——被认为是重复研究失败的一个原因。然而，几乎没有实证研究能证明期刊会明确拒绝发表重复研究。我们查阅了1151种心理学期刊的作者指南和公布的办刊宗旨，考察它们是否表明允许并接受重复研究。我们还研究了该学科不同分支的期刊做法是否存在差异，以及低影响力期刊和高影响力期刊的编辑做法是否不同。33种期刊（3%）在其办刊宗旨或作者指南中表示接受重复研究。高影响力期刊和低影响力期刊之间没有差异。本文讨论了这些发现对心理学的影响。
