Only papers with significant results and an “interesting story” to tell are typically published and visible. The need to publish in high-impact journals to get promotion and grants is part of the problem. How many failures to replicate a published study lay in the researcher’s drawers? To what extent does this result in knowledge about psychological phenomena being inaccurate? How many published papers changed their original focus after data collection to become a “publishable story”?
Fortunately, concerned psychological scientists have made some suggestions to deal with the problem. These firm suggestions made by Eric Eich, Editor-in-Chief of Psychological Science, deserve careful consideration. Blogger Neuroskeptic also discussed the problem and made some suggestions. Chris Chambers specifically advocates study registration as the remedy.
I expect these initiatives to take root and grow so we can have a more accurate and reliable psychological science.