Publish less, read more: Replies to Clegg, Wiggins, and Ostenson; and to Trafimow

Abstract

Clegg, Wiggins, and Ostenson, and Trafimow wrote two very different comments on “Publish Less, Read More.” In my reply to Clegg and colleagues, I agree that the inability to predict future success has led funding agencies and hiring committees to rely on social and political selection criteria and to use calculative audits as a proxy for scientific content. I argue that if it is clear that decisions to publish are based on theoretical criteria, and the numbers of publications per researcher decline, their relative value will increase, as will that of funding agencies and hiring committees. Trafimow argues that there are more than sufficient data for ad-hoc theorizing but that it does not happen, at least not enough. I agree that experimental psychologists often perform and publish research while being ill-prepared, and argue that only publication, but not data collection, should be limited to theoretically informed research.