QRPs in the deception literature (forensic psych)

The first paper on questionable research practices in the deception detection literature (under forensic psychology) has just been accepted for publication in Perspectives on Psychological Science:

Luke, T. (2019). Lessons from Pinocchio: Cues to deception may be highly exaggerated (preprint)

Page 30:

As I have explained above, I suspect that deception researchers, like Pinocchio, have not taken the bitter medicine of methodological reform in large part because the negative consequences of present practices have not been apparent. My hope is that what I have presented here will serve as a clear indication that the current way of doing things cannot be sustained. We must hold ourselves to higher standards and demand stronger evidence for claims of cues to deception. Effective reforms will be onerous. The medicine is bitter. But the alternative is worse.

Good news! The flagship journal in psychology & law, Law & Human Behavior (APA-journal), published a strong stand yesterday (Feb 19, 2019) against questionable research practices:

Page 2:

> We believe it is important to frame changes in these practices as signs of an evolving, maturing science and avoid defensive (“not me!”) reactions. Hopefully none of us were taught to deliberately falsify data. However, many learned and used practices that are now considered questionable (e.g., not reporting all dependent measures collected)–not because of an intent to deliberately mislead and conduct “bad science,” but instead because these practices were not widely considered problematic at the time. Much of the discourse on questionable research practices and reproducibility has involved basic social and cognitive psychology (Tackett et al., 2017), but the time for an honest self-inventory and reckoning of these issues within the field of law and human behavior is especially crucial given the applied implications of much of our work.

Full article here (gold open access).