I think this article paints a decent picture of the current environment within the social sciences and related research, and perhaps offers some lessons/advice to CT on how to prepare itself for the intense scrutiny that's sure to come if/when it is released into the hands of others to replicate. The article is full of great observations, but the following quote is helpful to start a discussion, if this forum is interested in doing so:
"Since 2011, a methodological reform movement has been rattling the field, raising the possibility that vast amounts of research, even entire subfields, might be unreliable. Up-and-coming social psychologists, armed with new statistical sophistication, picked up the cause of replications, openly questioning the work their colleagues conducted under a now-outdated set of assumptions. The culture in the field, once cordial and collaborative, became openly combative, as scientists adjusted to new norms of public critique while still struggling to adjust to new standards of evidence."
“The world as we have created it is a process of our thinking. It cannot be changed without changing our thinking.” – Albert Einstein
Oh man, it's unfortunate that they picked her as the postergirl for this restructuring.
It's very sensational, and people (the public's awareness/consciousness) reacts most strongly to figureheads and their lives are used as narratives/dramas to tell us how to live. A quiet background restructuring of methodology doesn't emotionally hit as hard as saying to upcoming researchers "You don't wanna end up like Amy Cuddy do you? There are new standards of practice now"
It seems they're talking about P-hacking, right? I was first introduced to that by Derek Muller here: