Kevin McCaffree and Colin Wright: A Way to Challenge the Groupthink of Scholarly Journals

This is good news.

   I've long said that, when the true history of the replication crisis is written, it will conclude that leftist ideolog was a significant force in guiding defective research. We know that leftist ideology skews teaching, the media, Wikipedia...and academia is, perhaps, the institution most awash in leftist sympathies. There's no doubt that it affects scholarly publication. The only question is: how much? The answer will turn out to be: a lot.

   Another thing that might help fix the broader problem of bad research would be to publish negative results, thus removing much of the incentive to cheat by e.g. P-hacking. (Some progress may have been made on this front by asking researchers to describe the methods they plan to use before they collect and analyze data.)

   Sounds like they may intend to publish post-publication peer review articles on philosophy papers as well. This would be good...I think...though philosophy is such a mess that I'm not sure it will really work. Most of what we write already is criticisms of previously-published papers... 

   To repeat myself repeating myself: there's no replication crisis in the humanities...because there's no such thing as replication. We don't even rise to the level of producing unreproducible studies--at least if that means: work that is in principle reproducible, but efforts to reproduce it fail. Maybe that's our replication crisis...