From Gautam Naik at Nature:
An editor on the board of a journal published by the prestigious American Psychological Association (APA) has been asked to resign in a controversy over data sharing in peer review.
Gert Storms — who says he won’t step down — is one of a few hundred scientists who have vowed that, from the start of this year, they will begin rejecting papers if authors won’t publicly share the underlying data, or explain why they can’t.
The idea, called the Peer Reviewers’ Openness Initiative, was launched by psychologists hoping to increase transparency in a field beset by reports of fraud and dubious research practices. And the APA, which does not ask that data be made available to peer reviewers or shared openly online, seems set to become an early testing ground for the initiative’s influence. With Storms’ situation still unresolved, the society’s council of editors will discuss whether it should change its policies at a meeting in late March. More.
It’s amazing how long a watched pot takes to boil. Social psychology has been the biggest locus of scandal in science (or, in this case, “science”) research in the last few decades. All sides agree: Progressive politics is strangling social sciences.
The critical question — and this may be a few conferences’ worth (to say nothing of books, TED talks, and journal articles) is: Is social science really a science? If so, how? Under what circumstances?
See also: Even Michael Shermer thinks social science is politically biased
Are polls scientific? Well, what happens when human complexity foils electoral predictions?
Peer review “unscientific”: Tough words from editor of Nature
Follow UD News at Twitter!