Are Social Workers Ignoring the "Cornerstone of Science" by Failing to Replicate Their Research?(Guest Editorial) (Editorial‪)‬

Aspirited debate is occurring in the popular press on social science and the scientific method. Jonah Lehrer (2010b) published an article in the New Yorker whose primary topic was the "decline effect," where initial estimates of interventions' effectiveness weaken when replicated. Lehrer's examples came from pharmacology, medicine, psychology, zoology, and more. A debate was ignited, largely on the Internet (for example, "Neurological blog," "Respectful Insolence," "Science Based Medicine," "Psychology Today," "ABC News"). In the next issue of the New Yorker, Lehrer (2011) responded to letters and e-mails in another article as well as an article in Wired (Lehrer, 2010a). Issues raised by the debate deserve consideration by social work researchers. This editorial explains the decline effect and presents comments on replications, failure to submit, publication bias, and "a fundamental cognitive flaw" (Lehrer, 2010b). The term "decline effect" has not appeared in social work literature, nor have estimates of the number of replications, the extent of failing to report research, or evidence of journals' publication bias, with the exception of Dickersin (1997). I base my comments on almost 30 years in academic social work at four universities, extensive reading of our research literature, teaching research, reviewing manuscripts, and publishing.