In any event, there really are serious problems in psychology as a subject as a whole, and the JPSP is not an isolated case.
This is what I've been thinking quite often during Carl's mini-series --- beating up on people who believe in magical powers, or on a specific journal, is of course quite easy, but I'm worried that people won't catch the more general and significantly more important point --- e.g., that all those heuristics and biases results that are cited around here, might not be so trustworthy.
(ETA: Also, strange you wrote almost exactly the same comment I would have; I don't think we normally have similar intuitions &c.)
Follow-up to: Follow-up on ESP study: "We don't publish replications", Using degrees of freedom to change the past for fun and profit
As I discussed in the above posts, the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, a leading psych journal, published a deeply flawed parapsychology study (see the second post for details) which had apparently been tortured to produce results. Then they rejected an attempt to replicate that found no effect, citing a sadly typical policy of not publishing replications. Some of you may enjoy reading one enterprising researcher's amusing satire article, purportedly (not actually) "tallying" past confirmations and disconfirmations in JPSP and drawing conclusions.
ETA: To clarify the last sentence, they didn't really find 4800+ confirmation and two disconfirmations. As they say in small print, the data were made up. It's right by the chart.