Skip to content

Association for Psychological Science announces a new journal


The Association for Psychological Science, the leading organization of research psychologists, announced a long-awaited new journal, Speculations on Psychological Science. From the official APS press release:

Speculations on Psychological Science, the flagship journal of the Association for Psychological Science, will publish cutting-edge research articles, short reports, and research reports spanning the entire spectrum of the science of psychology. We anticipate that Speculations on Psychological Science will be the highest ranked empirical journal in psychology. We recognize that many of the most noteworthy published claims in psychology and related fields are not well supported by data, hence the need for a journal for the publication of such exciting speculations without misleading claims of certainty.

– Sigmund Watson, Prof. (Ret.) Miskatonic University, and editor-in-chief, Speculations on Psychological Science

I applaud this development. Indeed, I’ve been talking about such a new journal for awhile now.


  1. kero says:

    I wish you posted this in the morning. I just sent a really nice paper to Science.

  2. matus says:

    haha, I almost fell for it.

    hint: category ‘zombies’, date 1st april, link is not working, besides apa already has PsychScience which fills the description

  3. matus says:

    seriously? aps needs to grow up first. they have to find out what the distinction between solid research and sloppy science means. then they can start to differentiate between various kinds of research – confirmatory, exploratory research, review, theorizing, opinion…

    I would say that research blogs are optimal platform for speculation since they better facilitate discussion than the traditional journals…

    also, you should have made arina bones the chief editor :)

  4. Daniel Gotthardt says:

    What a wonderful development. One can only hope that other (social) sciences will follow.

  5. Adam Smith says:

    Happy April 1st

  6. Paul Matthews says:

    Excellent – this will be a good journal for all Stephan Lewandowsky’s papers.

    • EJ Wagenmakers says:

      Shame on you Paul. Steve is one of the most honorable and careful researchers I know. His work in cognitive science is of the highest caliber. I can only assume your slander (because that is what it is) is motivated by your personal opinion about climate change. I know nothing about that topic, but that is not the point. The point is that Steve has always published important, top-notch papers, in which exemplary data collection is combined with mathematical modeling.

      Andrew, now this is something that warrants attention: Frontiers caved under pressure and retracted an article:

      So, I’ll say it again, because it deserves some emphasis: shame on you Paul. Your only excuse is ignorance.

      E.J. Wagenmakers

      • P says:

        Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit has identified many errors in Lewandowsky’s work. For example, some of his claims are based on cell sizes of one or two. See here: If this is “cognitive science … of the highest caliber”, problems in psychological research are even worse than commonly thought.

        BTW, I have no personal opinions about climate change, and have not really followed the debate.

        • EJ Wagenmakers says:


          I do not know Steve’s work on climate science. But I do know his work on cognitive psychology. It is first-rate, without a doubt, and by any academic standard. Ask any expert in my field (mathematical psychology) and you will get the same answer. If all psychologists (indeed, all scientists!) had Steve’s level of thoroughness then this whole “crisis of confidence” would not have happened.


  7. Erin Jonaitis says:

    I really wish this were their April Fools joke and not yours. I love it when people can laugh at themselves. It’s still pretty funny coming from you, though, even though as a sometime APS member it’s an ouchy kind of funny.

  8. Robin Morris says:

    The journal Medical Hypotheses actually does exist, and has similar goals for medical research. Until recently, it wasn’t even peer-reviewed. From

    “Medical Hypotheses will publish papers which describe theories, ideas which have a great deal of observational support and some hypotheses where experimental support is yet fragmentary'”

    I’ve found it a useful source of fun articles for intro stats courses.


  9. […] University ha sentito il bisogno di aggiornarsi per rimanere al passo coi tempi, lanciando una nuova rivista dedicata alle speculazioni […]

  10. Govind says:

    Very exciting. I got my BS from Miskatonic!

  11. Steve Sailer says:

    Seriously, this sounds like an excellent idea, although a website would be better than paper. For example, my brother-in-law can generate hypotheses at a remarkable rate, but he’s not terribly good at following up on checking them. Other people are less creative but more diligent at testing other people’s ideas. An edited website of the most interesting speculations in psychology could be highly useful in connecting people with ideas with people with the means of testing the ideas.

  12. […] earlier this week I was toying with the idea of doing an April Fool’s post, something like Andrew Gelman did. But it’s a good thing I didn’t, because Meg retweeted […]

  13. Bobbie Spellman says:

    I laughed, and, of course, cringed. I’d be laughing harder if you hadn’t taken the cover of MY journal (Perspectives on Psychological Science — home to many articles about the current problems in the field) to turn into the SPECULATIONS cover.

Leave a Reply

Where can you find the best CBD products? CBD gummies made with vegan ingredients and CBD oils that are lab tested and 100% organic? Click here.