Academic journals, in general, need to evolve for a lot of fields. Besides being too closed and a bit crusty, I think journals work well for sciences and possi

Academic journals, in general, need to evolve for a lot of fields. Besides being too closed and a bit crusty, I think journals work well for sciences and possibly also for philosophy. That's not surprising, since they evolved around these. But, for "soft sciences" (economics, psychology, etc.), I don't think the system works very well. Possibly some areas of health/medicine sciences/studies too. First, they have a lot of problems in practice. The replication crisis is a big example, and it impacted psychology most severely. Economics has this issue, which kind of comes down to ex post hypothesizing. There are fairly serious issues with generalizability. Even if results of some economic or behavioral study/experiment are good, can it be generalized past the narrowest terms of the experiment. The publishing system (or, maybe "publishing" is not even the ideal frame) needs to work in a way that promotes accumulation of evidence, data and replication but the system seems to be producing sprawl. I'm not sure what the answers are, but glad to see there's an interest in change.