Psychology is really the tip of the iceberg when it comes to research misconduct. We've noticed a lot of dodgy papers because of the broad public interest in th

Psychology is really the tip of the iceberg when it comes to research misconduct. We've noticed a lot of dodgy papers because of the broad public interest in the field and the overlap with the much more rigorous field of psychiatry, but I have no doubt that there are scores of Stapels and Arielys in most fields of research. In physics, we've seen an immense amount of recent controversy over LK-99; while the material might have some interesting properties, it is almost certainly not the room-temperature ambient-pressure superconductor that Lee and Kim claim it to be. How many totally bogus physics papers might be lurking in the literature, ignored and mostly un-cited? We don't know, because most of those papers don't make sufficiently interesting or exciting claims to inspire a raft of replication attempts. For all our aspirational beliefs about the scientific method and the power of peer review, most papers are subject to little more than a superficial sniff test. There are plausible reasons to believe that psychology might have a worse misconduct problem than other fields, but the idea that psychology is uniquely broken is, I fear, simply wishful thinking.