Vortrag PD Dr. Felix Schönbrodt "The Credibility Revolution in Psychological Science"

Für das Sommersemester konnte die Göttingen Open Source & Science Initiative of Psychology PD Dr. Felix Schönbrodt (Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München und LMU Open Science Center) gewinnen. Er wird am Donnerstag, 21. Juni, 12:00 c.t. einen Vortrag im Rahmen des Institutskolloquiums halten. Alle Interessierten sind herzlich eingeladen. Mehr Informationen unter: https://www.psych.uni-goettingen.de/de/gossip/news/open-science-vortrag-felix-schoenbrodt
Wann 21.06.2018
von 12:00 bis 13:45
Wo GEMI Raum 1.134
Termin übernehmen vCal

PD Dr. Felix Schönbrodt

Ludwig-Maximilian-Universität München und LMU Open Science Center

Felix Schönbrodt 

The credibility revolution in psychological science:
What have we achieved, where do we go?

Donnerstag, 21. Juni 2018

12.00 Uhr (c.t.)

Raum 1.134, GEMI (Goßlerstrasse 14) 


Many scholars locate the beginning of the replication crisis somewhere in 2011; in 2015 the reform movement gained even more momentum with the publication of the Reproducibility Project: Psychology (RP:P). In the past years, a growing community of researchers in psychology and other disciplines developed an amazing variety of approaches to tackle the problem, ranging from personal pledges, local open science initiatives, revised submission guidelines at journals and funding agencies, to the creation of tools for reproducible workflows and better statistics. This talk reflects about the achievements of the last years that lead some scholars to switch from the "replication crisis" narrative to a more positive story of the "credibility revolution" or "psychology's renaissance". In the second part, I will focus on an area that, however, still needs adjustments and will be crucial for a sustained success of the credibility movement: The incentive structure. I will provide evidence for two theses: (1) Current indicators of scientific quality (such as JIF, peer review, or output quantity) perform badly or not at all. (2) If we base grant funding, hiring, or promotion decisions on these flawed indicators, they provide an incentive structure that fosters bad science. In the final part, (3) I will present ideas for new scientific structures and performance evaluations that aim to re-align incentive structures and good scientific practice.