Yet another reason of why you should NEVER replicate a published study...

spunky

Can't make spagetti
#1
on my friday lab meeting (which i will sadly be missing because i'm going to Disney World!!! wooohoo!!!) we will be discussing the article, the response to said article and the published blog from Discover Magazine that led to this:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/n...on-bargh-psychology-study-doyen/#.UnFopfmsiSp

as you can see, another valid reason as for why you should NEVER replicate a published study in Psychology (or any other field) is because you risk the original author going ape**** on you and calling you names, as well as insulting your journal.

oh god... i **LIVE** for moments like this, where big-name academics engage in petty fights like this one. :D
 

fed1

TS Contributor
#2
thats great, made my day. ive actually seen aloooooooooooooooooot of this on large multi-investigator studies. prickly as porcupines, these little academics can be....:eek:
 

CB

Super Moderator
#3
Interesting that John Bargh's post has disappeared from Psychology Today... I guess he realised he wasn't making himself look too good.

But hell, the original author flipping out on you is an excellent reason to do replications. Then you get lengthy blog exchanges, media attention, forum posts about you, and delicious delicious CITATIONS.
 

noetsi

No cake for spunky
#5
It is amazing how petty academics, even big name ones can be. I remember an article in a major political science journal many years ago discussing the publishing process. A footnote pointed out that the author considered the editor a complete jerk, but figured it was just his personal relationship with him. Later he found out other authors, all professors of course, had similar opinions of the editor :)

An even better example of the pettiness of the community to each other was at a major conference involving ecological models in administration (which essentially argue management and planning don't matter and thus are controversial to say the least). To their credit the authors of that movement did a conference paper to reconcile their views with the dominant pardigms of the field. Then a spokesman for the management/sp group got up and after some preliminaries said essentially: "So what you are really saying after twenty years is, we were wrong." :p

I heard it got reall ugly after that...