Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. PLoS Medicine, 2(8), e124. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

Neher, A. (1967). Probability Pyramiding, Research Error and the Need for Independent Replication. The Psychological Record, 17(2), 257–262. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03393713

Moonesinghe, R., Khoury, M. J., & Janssens, A. C. J. W. (2007). Most Published Research Findings Are False—But a Little Replication Goes a Long Way. PLOS Medicine, 4(2), e28. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040028

Stroebe, W. (2016). Are most published social psychological findings false? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 66, 134–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.09.017

Diekmann, A. (2011). Are Most Published Research Findings False? Jahrbücher Für Nationalökonomie Und Statistik, 231(5–6), 628–635. https://doi.org/10.1515/jbnst-2011-5-606

Goodman, S., & Greenland, S. (2007). Why most published research findings are false: Problems in the analysis. PLoS Medicine, 4(4), e168.

Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2007). Why most published research findings are false: Author’s reply to Goodman and Greenland. PLoS Medicine, 4(6), e215.

In preparation for our discussion of "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" by John Ioannidis from 2005, we read a very similar paper published 40 years earlier:

Neher, A. (1967). Probability Pyramiding, Research Error and the Need for Independent Replication. The Psychological Record, 17(2), 257–262. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03393713

In this episode, we discuss what separates science from pseudoscience and touch upon the demarcation problem, the recent controversial podcast called the Telepathy Tapes, and the movie Ghostbusters. Enjoy. 

Shownotes

• McLean v. Arkansas 
• Pigliucci, M., & Boudry, M. (Eds.). (2019). Philosophy of pseudoscience: Reconsidering the demarcation problem. University of Chicago Press.
• Report of the Royal Commission to Investigate Animal Magnetism
• The Telepathy Tapes
• Frankfurt, H. G. (2009). On bullshit.
• Moberger, V. (2020). Bullshit, pseudoscience and pseudophilosophy. Theoria, 86(5), 595–611.
• Ghostbusters (1984) - Venkman's ESP Test Scene
•  

Conspiracy Stories Show Notes: 

• Zeitgeist documentary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeitgeist_(film_series)
• Podcast Drang naar Samenhang: https://podcasts.apple.com/nl/podcast/drang-naar-samenhang/id1584797552
• This is not a conspiracy theory documentary. https://www.everythingisaremix.info/tinact 
• Parker, M. (2000). Human Science as Conspiracy Theory. The Sociological Review, 48(2_suppl), 191-207. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.2000.tb03527.x
• Douglas, K. M., Sutton, R. M., & Cichocka, A. (2017). The Psychology of Conspiracy Theories. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26(6), 538-542. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417718261
• Tage-gate episode of More of a Comment than a Question:  https://moreofacomment.buzzsprout.com/1207223/episodes/5511751-tage-gate 

Broad, W. J., & Wade, N. (1983). Betrayers of the truth. New York : Simon and Schuster. http://archive.org/details/betrayersoftruth00broa

Wolfgang Stroebe, Tom Postmes, & Russell Spears. (2012). Scientific Misconduct and the Myth of Self-Correction in Science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 670–688. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612460687

Zotero can track if you are citing retractions: https://retractionwatch.com/2019/06/12/want-to-check-for-retractions-in-your-personal-library-and-get-alerts-for-free-now-you-can/

100% CI blog: The Untold Mystery of Rogue RA https://www.the100.ci/2024/12/18/rogue-ra/

Merton, R. K. (1957). Priorities in Scientific Discovery: A Chapter in the Sociology of Science. American Sociological Review, 22(6), 635–659. https://doi.org/10.2307/2089193

Senior RIKEN scientist involved in stem cell scandal commits suicide https://www.science.org/content/article/senior-riken-scientist-involved-stem-cell-scandal-commits-suicide

Kis, A., Tur, E. M., Lakens, D., Vaesen, K., & Houkes, W. (2022). Leaving academia: PhD attrition and unhealthy research environments. PLOS ONE, 17(10), e0274976. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274976

Babbage, C. (1830). Reflections on the Decline of Science in England: And on Some of Its Causes. B. Fellowes.

Sokal, A. D. (1996). Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity. Social Text, 46/47, 217. https://doi.org/10.2307/466856

Grievance studies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair

It is legal to own and/or read Mein Kampf in The Netherlands (and Germany).

Hand, D. (2007). Deception and dishonesty with data: Fraud in science. Significance, 4(1), 22–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-9713.2007.00215.x

Gross, C. (2016). Scientific Misconduct. Annual Review of Psychology, 67(Volume 67, 2016), 693–711. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033437

Paolo Macchiarini: https://www.science.org/content/article/macchiarini-guilty-misconduct-whistleblowers-share-blame-new-karolinska-institute

The Truth about China’s Cash-for-Publication Policy: https://www.technologyreview.com/2017/07/12/150506/the-truth-about-chinas-cash-for-publication-policy/

Claudine Gay plagiarism: https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2024/01/22/harvard-releases-details-of-claudine-gay-investigation/

Many Co-Authors: https://manycoauthors.org/

Paper describing a replication study where students make up data: Azrin, N. H., Holz, W., Ulrich, R., & Goldiamond, I. (1961). The control of the content of conversation through reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 4, 25–30.

Francesca Gino defamation case dismissed: https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2024/9/12/judge-dismisses-gino-lawsuit-defamation-charges/

Retractions in Social Influence of the work of Guéguen: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15534510.2024.2431408, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15534510.2024.2431415, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15534510.2024.2431421

Diederik Stapel’s book: http://nick.brown.free.fr/stapel/FakingScience-20161115.pdf

Merton, R. K. (1957). Priorities in Scientific Discovery: A Chapter in the Sociology of Science. American Sociological Review, 22(6), 635–659. https://doi.org/10.2307/2089193

In this special two-part celebration, we answer questions submitted by our listeners. Thanks to Don Moore, Leif Nelson, Henry Wyneken, Charlotte Pennington, and Karan Paranganat for the questions featured in this episode. And thank you for joining us for 50 episodes! 

In this special two-part celebration, we answer questions submitted by our listeners. Thanks to James Steele, Peder Isager, and Simen Leithe Tajet for the questions featured in this episode. And thank you for joining us for 50 episodes! 

Shownotes

• Roger Scruton Quote 
• Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G. J., & van Heerden, J. (2003). The theoretical status of latent variables. Psychological Review, 110(2), 203–219. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.110.2.203
• Danermark, B., Ekström, M., & Karlsson, J. C. (2019). Explaining Society: Critical Realism in the Social Sciences (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351017831
• Maxwell, J. A., & Mittapalli, K. (2010). Realism as a Stance for Mixed Methods Research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie, SAGE Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research (pp. 145–168). SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506335193.n6
• Vincent, S., & O’Mahoney, J. (2017). Critical realism and qualitative research: An introductory overview (G. Grandy, C. Cassell, & A. L. Cunliffe, Eds.; pp. 201–216). SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526430212
• Danermark, B. (2019). Applied interdisciplinary research: A critical realist perspective. Journal of Critical Realism, 18(4), 368–382. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767430.2019.1644983

You can listen to the podcast More of a Comment Than a Question here: https://moreofacomment.buzzsprout.com/

Our joint episode is a response to the episode ‘Final Final Final Comments’: https://moreofacomment.buzzsprout.com/1207223/episodes/16055645-final-final-final-comments

In preparation for our next episode, a joint recording with our friends from More of a Comment than a Question, we read a paper by Robert Cialdini about the value of social psychology for the general public. 

• Cialdini, R. B. (2009). We Have to Break Up. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(1), 5–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01091.x

How I Fail. Blog by Veronika Cheplygina https://veronikach.com/category/how-i-fail/

Arkin, R. (2011). Most Underappreciated: 50 Prominent Social Psychologists Describe Their Most Unloved Work. Oxford University Press.

Kerr, N. L. (1998). HARKing: Hypothesizing After the Results are Known. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(3), 196–217. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0203_4

Sharpe, D. (2013). Why the resistance to statistical innovations? Bridging the communication gap. Psychological Methods, 18(4), 572–582. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034177

Anti-Creativity Letters episode: https://nulliusinverba.podbean.com/e/prologus-23-the-anticreativity-letters-r-e-nisbett

Rouder, J. N., Haaf, J. M., & Snyder, H. K. (2019). Minimizing Mistakes in Psychological Science. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 2(1), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918801915

Firestein, S. (2015). Failure: Why Science Is So Successful (First Edition). Oxford University Press.