<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?><oembed><version><![CDATA[1.0]]></version><provider_name><![CDATA[Jason Collins blog]]></provider_name><provider_url><![CDATA[http://jasoncollins.blog]]></provider_url><author_name><![CDATA[Jason Collins]]></author_name><author_url><![CDATA[https://jasoncollins.blog/author/jasonacollins/]]></author_url><title><![CDATA[Could this critique apply to&nbsp;economics?]]></title><type><![CDATA[link]]></type><html><![CDATA[<p>From <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/replication-studies-bad-copy-1.10634" target="_blank">an excellent article</a> in Nature News by Ed Yong on problems with replication in psychology:</p>
<blockquote><p>One reason for the excess in positive results for psychology is an emphasis on “slightly freak-show-ish” results, says Chris Chambers, an experimental psychologist at Cardiff University, UK. “High-impact journals often regard psychology as a sort of parlour-trick area,” he says. Results need to be exciting, eye-catching, even implausible. Simmons says that the blame lies partly in the review process. “When we review papers, we&#8217;re often making authors prove that their findings are novel or interesting,” he says. “We&#8217;re not often making them prove that their findings are true.”</p></blockquote>
<p>I recommend reading <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/replication-studies-bad-copy-1.10634" target="_blank">the whole article</a>.</p>
]]></html></oembed>