LAUSR

Science is hard. Yes, it leads us to truth, but it doesn't lead us there in a straight line; instead it meanders slowly and circuitously, sometimes taking us down wrong paths altogether. But, science eventually gets it right, it eventually corrects course, finding its slow way to truth. My home discipline of psychology is now going through just such a course correction, with allied fields such as neuroscience following suit. But why is such a correction needed in neuroscience? Certainly the now widely known errors committed by social scientists (and their attendant journals and scientific societies) are not being committed by neuroscientists. Right? Huber, Potter, and Huszar (2019) recount a story that should cause us to doubt this convenient fiction. In brief, Huber et al. (2019) tried in earnest to build upon a finding they found noteworthy (Wimber, Alink, Charest, Kriegeskorte, & Anderson, 2015). However, after three replication attempts, years in the making, they concluded that they could not (Potter, Huszar,&Huber, 2018). When they tried to publish the results of their labour, they found that the journal that published the original paperdthe venerable Nature Neurosciencedwas not interested in publishing their replication attempt; this prestigious journal was unconcerned with correcting the record. Huber and colleagues’ story is a familiar one. Those who have been paying attention to the methodological reform movement in psychology are depressingly familiar with this sort of story (Lilienfeld & Waldman, 2017; Open Science Collaboration, 2015; Spellman, 2015). The only notable feature here is that this story is being told by hard neuroscientists and not us soft social scientists. This story reveals that neuroscience is committing some of the same errors as psychology. It reveals that important neuroscience journals