History has thought us that peer reviewing was a great idea. And indeed it had been, science had never been bigger than today. However, recent reflections on the peer reviewing system expose some major flaws in the system. Publication and confirmation bias are some of the biases that influence a paper being published. The revolution of printed press accelerated the growth of science. The new revolution is upon us, the internet. I propose that journals should adopt a new format which is completely digital. This new system dictates that new findings(papers) are put on an online discussion board for all to see and comment on. For free. In this way everybody can comment on the process and the writers can defend themselves and perhaps improve on the results, methods or can further examine any possible confounds. In this way science is open as it should be, and more people can influence the field of science and learn from the openly available body of knowledge.
Psychology today has come a long way since its conception, but it is still plagued by many different factors. Fraud and QRP’s are big problems for the scientific psychology community. Do we as psychology researchers generally know what constitutes QRP’s and how to recognize them? Human factors will always play a role in scientific practice in my opinion, so addressing problems like QRP’s shouldn’t solely focus on trying to dehumanize psychology. Instead, there should be a revaluation of science education, where there is a bigger focus on the actual practice of being a researcher and the dangers you’ll face in the field. However, in educational programs like the Research Master Psychology, you already see some of the same problems and incentives emerge, creating a climate in which quantity is valued over quality. These issues are shortly addressed in my paper.
Science is currently in a crisis. Results across the board do not replicate, null results are hardly published and sloppy science to get favourable results are at an all time high. At the heart of this issue lies publication pressure the pressure for scientists to publish as many articles as possible. To solve this issue, I propose a performance interview to make a more qualitative evaluation. Furthermore, an interview could better take into account all different goals of a scientist: science, education, and societal benefit.