>but an unimportant journal in psychology.
This is untrue. It's comically untrue.
I was doing my PhD in cogsci when this came out and everybody was surprised that PNAS would publish such a bad study, given that we were more used to seeing things like this: https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/106/5/1672.full.pdf and this https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/112/2/619.full.pdf.
PNAS has an _excellent_ reputation in psychology, especially in the psychophysics and EEG/MEG crowd.
>but an unimportant journal in psychology.
This is untrue. It's comically untrue.
I was doing my PhD in cogsci when this came out and everybody was surprised that PNAS would publish such a bad study, given that we were more used to seeing things like this: https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/106/5/1672.full.pdf and this https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/112/2/619.full.pdf.
PNAS has an _excellent_ reputation in psychology, especially in the psychophysics and EEG/MEG crowd.