A recent article at Real Clear Investigations unpacks a familiar theme: “Why so many social science claims are false.” Neither the falsehood nor the reasons are news. However, Stetson psychology prof Christopher J. Ferguson’s article also identifies three efforts at reform that are worth knowing about.

The Open Science Movement

Image Credit: iQoncept - Adobe Stock

One promising sign is the growth of the “open science movement,” which encourages the preregistration of studies. This reduces the ability of researchers to mangle their data analysis to produce preferred results. And the movement’s promotion of greater data transparency allows for more confirmation of findings. October 1, 2026

Or disconformation, as the case may be.

Spearheading the Open Science Movement in the United States is University of Virginia psychology prof Brian Nosek, whose Center for Open Science offers resources for more rigorousness and transparency.

Reducing reliance on the Big Five science publishers

Some scholars are breaking away from the Big Five academic publishers by beginning their own nonprofit scientific journals. In some cases, this has been the result of exorbitant fees that journals charge authors for making papers public. A new federal legal case likewise accuses the Big Five of defrauding the government through unreasonable publishing charges, often paid for by government grants. October 1, 2026

The Big Five are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley, Taylor & Francis, and Sage.

The hope is that independent journals will be less biased toward positive findings—and less biased in general. That’s a lot to ask, of course. It may be that the bias will run in different directions, depending on the journal, which would mean a welcome new diversity of voices in many areas.

Lastly, some institutions are taking a big risk: Quality over quantity

They are defying the old joke, “The dean can’t read, but he can count,”

In awarding promotions and tenure, they are putting less emphasis on the number of papers that researchers produce and the prestige of the journals where they are published. Instead, the quality of the paper is what counts. October 1, 2026

The struggle to identify quality apart from the usual approval process will be a challenge but perhaps that is exactly the one that is most needed. If passing peer review is the only criteria for quality, many current problems are highly predictable.

Note: Here are some of the other articles in the Real Clear Investigations series on the Normalization of Scientific Fraud.