• Welcome to Phoenix Rising!

    Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of and finding treatments for complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia (FM), long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.

    To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.

How Trustworthy Is the Scientific Literature in Industrial and Organizational Psychology?


Senior Member
I haven't read this. But I've come across a free copy of the full text so, as it sounds interesting (to me anyway), I thought I'd highlight it: http://www.researchgate.net/publica...tional_psychology/file/72e7e5205082e4ea28.pdf

The reason why I personally think it sounds interesting is:

(i) it looks like it covers the issue of how the literature in many scientific fields may not be a perfect presentation of the real world.

(ii) it looks at psychology in particular, which I think may need to be particularly scrutinised in this regard.

How Trustworthy Is the Scientific Literature in Industrial and Organizational Psychology?

Sven Kepes*, Michael A. McDaniel

Article first published online: 6 AUG 2013
DOI: 10.1111/iops.12045

Industrial and Organizational Psychology

This focal article has benefited from feedback provided by several colleagues.


The trustworthiness of research findings has been questioned in many domains of science.

This article calls for a review of the trustworthiness of the scientific literature in industrial–organizational (I–O) psychology and a reconsideration of common practices that may harm the credibility of our literature.

We note that most hypotheses in I–O psychology journals are confirmed.

Thus, we are either approaching omniscience or our journals are publishing an unrepresentative sample of completed research.

We view the latter explanation as more likely.

We review structural problems in the publication process and in the conduct of research that is likely to promote a distortion of scientific knowledge.

We then offer recommendations to make the I–O literature more accurate and trustworthy.