Some journals are attempting to combat one of the problems that Campos identifies – namely, the difficulty of replication. For example, I am currently going through a revise and resubmit process at Social Science Quarterly, and that journal required me to provide information on how my data could be obtained for replication purposes. Goffman's work would have been unpublishable in SSQ, because it was non-replicable.
If this move becomes common, there may be certain types of research that is no longer publishable – but as Campos points out, are we being well-served by research whose conclusions are unverifiable?
I don't agree with Campos on the "Law School Scam" business, but I think he's dead-on here.
Some journals are attempting to combat one of the problems that Campos identifies – namely, the difficulty of replication. For example, I am currently going through a revise and resubmit process at Social Science Quarterly, and that journal required me to provide information on how my data could be obtained for replication purposes. Goffman's work would have been unpublishable in SSQ, because it was non-replicable.
If this move becomes common, there may be certain types of research that is no longer publishable – but as Campos points out, are we being well-served by research whose conclusions are unverifiable?
I don't agree with Campos on the "Law School Scam" business, but I think he's dead-on here.