An academic scientist’s professional success depends on publishing. Publishing norms emphasize novel, positive results. As
such, disciplinary incentives encourage design, analysis, and reporting decisions that elicit positive results and ignore
negative results. Prior reports demonstrate how these incentives inflate the rate of false effects in published science. When
incentives favor novelty over replication, false results persist in the literature unchallenged, reducing efficiency in knowledge
accumulation. Previous suggestions to address this problem are unlikely to be effective. For example, a journal of negative
results publishes otherwise unpublishable reports. This enshrines the low status of the journal and its content. The persistence
of false findings can be meliorated with strategies that make the fundamental but abstract accuracy motive—getting it right—competitive
with the more tangible and concrete incentive—getting it published. This article develops strategies for improving scientific
practices and knowledge accumulation that account for ordinary human motivations and biases.
