Research Department of Clinical Educational & Health Psychology, University College London.
Perspect Psychol Sci. 2023 Sep;18(5):1244-1253. doi: 10.1177/17456916221141357. Epub 2023 Feb 6.
There is growing evidence that the published psychological literature is marred by multiple errors and inaccuracies and often fails to reflect the changing nature of the knowledge base. At least four types of error are common-citation error, methodological error, statistical error, and interpretation error. In the face of the apparent inevitability of these inaccuracies, core scientific values such as openness and transparency require that correction mechanisms are readily available. In this article, I reviewed standard mechanisms in psychology journals and found them to have limitations. The effects of more widely enabling open postpublication critique in the same journal in addition to conventional peer review are considered. This mechanism is well established in medicine and the life sciences but rare in psychology and may assist psychological science to correct itself.
越来越多的证据表明，已发表的心理学文献存在多种错误和不准确之处，并且往往不能反映知识基础的变化性质。至少有四种类型的错误很常见——引文错误、方法错误、统计错误和解释错误。面对这些不准确的明显必然性，开放性和透明性等核心科学价值观要求随时提供纠正机制。在本文中，我回顾了心理学期刊中的标准机制，发现它们存在局限性。此外，还考虑了在传统同行评审之外，在同一期刊中更广泛地启用公开的发表后评论的效果。这种机制在医学和生命科学中已经很成熟，但在心理学中却很少见，它可能有助于心理学科学自我纠正。
