Editorial: A Response to Criticisms of the OpenPsych Journals

Abstract

The OpenPsych journals were set up in 2014 by Emil Kirkegaard and Davide Piffer due to dissatisfaction with existing journals in differential psychology and behavioural genetics. To date, 51 papers have been published in total, encompassing a range of topics from differential psychology and behavioural genetics to socio-political science. However, the journals have come under criticism in both online articles and unpublished offline discussions. This editorial responds to the main criticisms that have been levelled at them, namely that it is unethical or illegitimate to: (1) publish research on politically controversial topics; (2) publish papers in journals of which one is an editor; (3) have papers be reviewed by individuals who do not possess satisfactory academic credentials; (4) have papers be reviewed by individuals with controversial political views; and (5) have papers be reviewed by individuals who are personally acquainted with the authors. Since the first of these criticisms has been answered extensively elsewhere, here we focus our attention on the other four.