The challenges confronting psychological science can be divided into two categories: Hard and easy. The hard problems have to do with developing measures, methods, theories, and models that will enable the development of a genuinely useful science of psychology. Solving those problems will take many smart and creative people a long time. The easy problem is to stop publishing so many crappy, underpowered, p-hacked experiments that don’t replicate. Replication is not the only criterion for a science, but it is a fundamental one.
Some research psychologists who champion transparency and replicability have expressed low opinions of journal and journal editors. I’m enthusiastically on board with efforts to promote transparency and replicability, but I’m also a journal editor. I have read that journals are vestigial organs that no longer serve valuable functions and that journals are maintained only due to outmoded traditions that make peer-reviewed journal articles the coin of our realm. Some psychologists have expressed outrage that journals charge people to read their pages. The argument seems to be that journals add no real value. In my view, journals can and often do add value.