Sophia Crüwell

Theoretical arguments and empirical investigations indicate that a high proportion of published findings do not replicate and are likely false. The current position paper provides a broad perspective on scientific error, which may lead to replication failures. This broad perspective focuses on reform history and on opportunities for future reform. We organize our perspective along four main themes: institutional reform, methodological reform, statistical reform and publishing reform. For each theme, we illustrate potential errors by narrating the story of a fictional researcher during the research cycle. We discuss future opportunities for reform. The resulting agenda provides a resource to usher in an era that is marked by a research culture that is less error-prone and a scientific publication landscape with fewer spurious findings.

Publishers are signing transformative agreements with different research institutions and funding bodies across the world. These agreements establish that the institution or funder makes a block payment in exchange for an annual quota of OA papers allowing their affiliated authors to publish OA in an agreed list of journals, at no extra cost to the individual author. This is a step towards the transformation of these journals into a Gold (commercial) Open Access regime. In January 2023, the members of the OA working group contacted the editors of the 27 journals listed as relevant for the field of philosophy of science on the website of the Philosophy of Science Association. We asked the editors-in-chief two questions: 1) Did your publishers discuss any plans to transition to gold open access exclusively with you? If so, how would it work? 2) If the publishers did contact you regarding this matter, what is your view on the project? We collected 22 answers. The executive summary is: 10 of the 27 journals have started the transition to Gold Open Access, although many editors are not aware of this shift, but they wouldn’t support it, and many are actively against it.

The ‘psychologist’s green thumb’ refers to the argument that an experimenter needs an indeterminate set of skills to successfully replicate an effect. This argument is sometimes invoked by psychological researchers to explain away failures of independent replication attempts of their work. In this paper, I assess the psychologist’s green thumb as a candidate explanation for individual replication failure and argue that it is potentially costly for psychology as a field. I also present other, more likely reasons for these replication failures. I conclude that appealing to a psychologist’s green thumb is not a convincing explanation for replication failure.