Psychology journal editor asked to resign for refusing to review papers unless he can see the data

[adreno]

Psychologist Gert Storms doesn't want to review scientific papers if their authors refuse to share with him the underlying data. The American Psychological Association (APA), which publishes the journal he edits, has asked him to resign.

https://boingboing.net/2017/03/02/psychology-journal-editor-aske.html

 

[Solstice]

That's good practice.

 

[Valentijn]

Hopefully he gets a job offer with a more reputable organization.

 

[AndyPR]

A 2006 study showed that 73% of psychologists refuse to show their data after publication, even after agreeing to do so. It sounds shady, but Nature's article seems to suggest that an embarrassed unfamiliarity with the rigors of science is still sadly at hand in the halls of psychology:

"... surveyed 600 researchers in the field to understand barriers to data sharing. The main explanations that they gave were: data sharing is an uncommon practice in the field; researchers prefer to share data only on request; it is time consuming; and researchers have never learned how to share data properly. Wagenmakers’ survey results have not yet been published.

Despite prolonged pressure, the APA hasn’t changed its data policies for years"

 

[Barry53]

"The policy of asking people to leave rather than inviting a discussion and getting critical voices — I found that quite inappropriate," said Hartsuiker.

Arrogance, powerful sense of over-entitlement, criticism-avoidance behaviour, cannot cope with open discussion about the need for openness of data. Funny thing - I think we have encountered that before? Oh yes - psychiatry-driven research.

 

[A.B.]

Fire safety inspector asked to resign after refusing to certify uninspectable building as safe.

Okay, not quite but if you can keep the inconvenients bits hidden from the reviewer it boils down to the same thing.

 

[Snowdrop]

Had a look at the first several comments. Mostly positive toward sharing the data.

Will share on twitter in support of GS.

 

[Mary]

the comments are great - I've read several and did not come across any that were opposed to sharing data. My favorite is this one: "My data? It's the best data in the world! Huge data. Believe me! It's fantastic!"

 

[Solstice]

"Psychology, you run the constant risk of your perfect analysis being derailed by not knowing that an incident in third grade instilled your subject with a subconscious urge to lie to anyone wearing corduroy.

Hence, the saying "it's not an exact science"..."

I liked that one.

 

[HowToEscape?]

That's nuts. Not releasing raw data to the public, sure I can understand that. Not showing it to the referee who needs to judge whether the results actually follow from the data, and whether the study is valid? That's like "sure you can inspect this restaurant, but you are not allowed inside the kitchen".