Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 197
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once
98%
921
2 minutes
20
In this viewpoint article, the authors assert that psychology is in the midst of a "replication crisis" due to factors such as low power, p-hacking, publication bias, and hypothesizing after the results are known (HARKing). Individually, these practices have been decried for decades, but only in the last 15 years has the corrosive effect of these practices been fully appreciated. The authors contend that these practices are more than "questionable" and constitute unethical research practices according to the American Psychological Association's (2017) Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. The public deserves the ethical and honest practice of clinical science described by APA's ethics codes. Although these issues cut across all subdisciplines of psychology, they take on special importance within clinical psychology where research on assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of mental health problems have meaningful real-world implications. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/abn0000974 | DOI Listing |