Robinson et al. ("Educ Psychol Rev" 25(2):291-302, 2013) offer a thoughtful and powerful argument for a policy change for primary educational research journals. This policy change would "disallow recommendations for practice" (p. 10) in primary educational research journals. They provided compelling examples of works in which authors have either offered implications that go beyond their research design (i.e., stating causal relationships based on correlational data) or speculations and implications that go (way) beyond the results of their study. In my response, I first identify the many points made by Robinson et al. with which I agree and make it clear that I believe this discussion is a healthy one for the field. I do not, however, concur with the recommendation for an editorial policy change for primary research journals and offer reasons why the policy recommended is both too much and too little to deal with the issues they have identified as well as additional issues I find concerning in the submission and publication of studies in primary research journals.