Science progresses in general through the slow steady steps of replicating initial findings, this either adds trust in an experimental finding or the hypothesis needs amending or throwing out completely.
Unfortunately, in recent years a problem has been developing with the seductive appeal of chasing the P-Value and getting a statistically significant result. Researchers know that journals are more likely to report a statistically significant finding. In this way, the scientific journals are adopting a media-type approach by ‘if it bleeds it leads’ or a ‘wow!’ factor. This creates a couple of issues, one is that researchers may be more tempted to massage the figures to create a statistically significant result.
There is also the issue, that previous studies aren’t being replicated as often leading to a lot of noise within the field of psychology.
Solutions:
In light of these difficulties, there are now organisations such as OSF (Open Science Collaboration) which fosters and helps researchers design their studies with transparency in mind.
Along with this, more replications of new studies are taking place to reduce both the noise in science and provide a safer foundation on which to build.
There have also been attempts to more clearly delineate the plan of the study design.
Conclusion:
There are a couple of links at the bottom to find out more about the replication crisis and how it affects the field of psychology. But I want to end by saying that even with these problems science moves us forward. We continue to learn more and more about the human mind and behaviour. Any human endeavour will have issues, the wonder is that science, a human endeavour, works as well as it does to innovate and make possible a multitude of benefits.
Acknowledging shortcomings is one of the chief benefits of science, and how it differs from every other method of human investigation.
Useful Links:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/basics/replication-crisis
https://osf.io/?view_only=