Ulrich Schimmack is a professor of psychology at the University of Toronto. He received his Ph.D. at the Free University Berlin in 1997. His research interests include wellbeing (happiness), emotions, personality, and research methods. Since 2011, he has worked on statistical methods to detect and correct for publication bias.
The past decade has revealed major problems with the research practices of psychological scientist that make it difficult to trust research articles. Peer-review is often unable to detect methodological flaws, especially when these flaws are shared among researchers in a specific field. For example, researchers who use implicit measures will not present research that these measures lack validity and researchers who use self-reports are not motivated to point out problems of self-reports. Moreover, literature reviews continue to cite outdated studies that failed to replicate as if they present scientific evidence. Due to these problems, many claims by psychological scientists cannot be trusted. As a result, psychological research does not advance knowledge and educate the public. To change this, it is necessary to create a brand that stands for credibility, trustworthiness, and integrity. This is the aim of #PsychologyDigest.
Why would Psychology Digest be more credible and trustworthy than scientific organizations or Psychology Today? The past decade has shown that the only way to ensure credibility is open science. That is, open sharing of information and open discussion, and willingness to respond to criticism with scientific arguments are essential. For this reason, all blog posts have a comment section to share critical comments, additional evidence, or alternative viewpoints. Blog posts will be updated when new information becomes available. Ultimately, there is no science without consensus based on valid evidence. By this standard, many areas of psychology are not (yet) a science because researchers disagree about fundamental questions. Blog posts on Psychology Digest cannot only inform the public, but also facilitate discussion among researchers to resolve controversies in a public form.
Psychology Digest 