Journals That Ban Replications--Are They Serious Scholarly Outlets At All?

"Here’s the problem, and it’s true for science as much as it’s true for coworkers, spouses, or anyone else: Trust can only be earned, not demanded. And one of the most critical places where scientists, journals, and funders could earn that trust is by giving more prominence to replications and reanalyses that expose prior scientific errors....

In some cases, to be sure, a letter to the editor might suffice for minor corrections, and journal editors obviously have the responsibility to make sure that a failed replication is indeed accurate and important enough to publish. 

But in the case of failed replications that expose obvious errors in the original article, a short letter will likely be inadequate to address the journal’s earlier mistake. We all know that such letters won’t be as widely read, and the original article will probably still be cited and read nearly as often (indeed, in psychology, the publication of a failed replication only makes the citation rate of the original article go down by 14%, and another study even found that non-replicable papers are cited at a higher rate than replicable papers).

What these medical and health journals are saying, however, is that they place a higher priority on citations and audience interest than on publishing replications. Put another way, they prefer popularity over truth, when the two are in conflict.

This is not a respectable scientific position, nor does it deserve public trust...."