This article (published Friday 16th Jan 2016) has a general focus on questions of transparency and data sharing in science, and touches on issues of interest to us: Link to full article: http://www.theguardian.com/science/...ld-the-key-to-making-science-more-transparent The author is Pete Etchells — "the Guardian's science blog network coordinator". He has coauthored a paper suggesting a new approach: Only a dozen or so comments, all apparently from people working in research and nearly all against the proposal. I was struck by this phrase in one comment — "And once again I see Chambers and Etchells seeing all scientific endeavours as though they are flaky psychology projects which isn't so." Do most scientists still see psychology as flaky non-science? In which case, why aren't they more vocal about it? Isn't it harming their reputations, too?