Where Are the Self-Correcting Mechanisms in Science?

• Published in: Review of general psychology 2022-06, Vol.26 (2), p.212-223
• Main Authors: Vazire, Simine, Holcombe, Alex O.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Appraisal; Biomedicine; Credibility; Peer review; Psychology; Transparency
• ISSN: 1089-2680; 1939-1552
• DOI: 10.1177/10892680211033912

It is often said that science is self-correcting, but the replication crisis suggests that self-correction mechanisms have fallen short. How can we know whether a particular scientific field has effective self-correction mechanisms, that is, whether its findings are credible? The usual processes that supposedly provide mechanisms for scientific self-correction, such as journal-based peer review and institutional committees, have been inadequate. We describe more verifiable indicators of a field’s commitment to self-correction. These fall under the broad headings of 1) transparency, which is already the subject of many reform efforts and 2) critical appraisal, which has received less attention and which we focus on here. Only by obtaining Observable Self-Correction Indicators (OSCIs) can we begin to evaluate the claim that “science is self-correcting.” We expect that the veracity of this claim varies across fields and subfields, and suggest that some fields, such as psychology and biomedicine, fall far short of an appropriate level of transparency and, especially, critical appraisal. Fields without robust, verifiable mechanisms for transparency and critical appraisal cannot reasonably be said to be self-correcting, and thus do not warrant the credibility often imputed to science as a whole.