scholarly journals Scientific Misconduct in Psychology

2019 ◽  
Vol 227 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-63 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johannes Stricker ◽  
Armin Günther
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Lower Bound ◽  
Empirical Investigation ◽  
Scientific Misconduct ◽  
Psychological Research ◽  
Prevalence Estimate ◽  
Journal Articles ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Questionable Research Practices ◽  
Prevalence Estimates

Abstract. Spectacular cases of scientific misconduct have contributed to concerns about the validity of published results in psychology. In our systematic review, we identified 16 studies reporting prevalence estimates of scientific misconduct and questionable research practices (QRPs) in psychological research. Estimates from these studies varied due to differences in methods and scope. Unlike other disciplines, there was no reliable lower bound prevalence estimate of scientific misconduct based on identified cases available for psychology. Thus, we conducted an additional empirical investigation on the basis of retractions in the database PsycINFO. Our analyses showed that 0.82 per 10,000 journal articles in psychology were retracted due to scientific misconduct. Between the late 1990s and 2012, there was a steep increase. Articles retracted due to scientific misconduct were identified in 20 out of 22 PsycINFO subfields. These results show that measures aiming to reduce scientific misconduct should be promoted equally across all psychological subfields.

scholarly journals Ethical Shades of Gray: Questionable Research Practices in Health Professions Education

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony R. Artino ◽  
Erik W. Driessen ◽  
Lauren A. Maggio
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Misconduct ◽  
Health Professions ◽  
The United States ◽  
Health Professions Education ◽  
Survey Study ◽  
Practice Research ◽  
Scientific Integrity ◽  
Public Confidence ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Questionable Research Practices

AbstractPurposeTo maintain scientific integrity and engender public confidence, research must be conducted responsibly. Whereas scientific misconduct, like data fabrication, is clearly irresponsible and unethical, other behaviors—often referred to as questionable research practices (QRPs)—exploit the ethical shades of gray that color acceptable practice. This study aimed to measure the frequency of self-reported QRPs in a diverse, international sample of health professions education (HPE) researchers.MethodIn 2017, the authors conducted an anonymous, cross-sectional survey study. The web-based survey contained 43 QRP items that asked respondents to rate how often they had engaged in various forms of scientific misconduct. The items were adapted from two previously published surveys.ResultsIn total, 590 HPE researchers took the survey. The mean age was 46 years (SD=11.6), and the majority of participants were from the United States (26.4%), Europe (23.2%), and Canada (15.3%). The three most frequently reported QRPs were adding authors to a paper who did not qualify for authorship (60.6%), citing articles that were not read (49.5%), and selectively citing papers to please editors or reviewers (49.4%). Additionally, respondents reported misrepresenting a participant’s words (6.7%), plagiarizing (5.5%), inappropriately modifying results (5.3%), deleting data without disclosure (3.4%), and fabricating data (2.4%). Overall, 533 (90.3%) respondents reported at least one QRP.ConclusionsNotwithstanding the methodological limitations of survey research, these findings indicate that a substantial proportion of HPE researchers report a range of QRPs. In light of these results, reforms are needed to improve the credibility and integrity of the HPE research enterprise.“Researchers should practice research responsibly. Unfortunately, some do not.” –Nicholas H. Steneck, 20061

scholarly journals Philosophy of Scientific Malpractice

SATS ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hanne Andersen
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Philosophy Of Science ◽  
Scientific Knowledge ◽  
Scientific Misconduct ◽  
Current Work ◽  
Responsible Conduct Of Research ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
New Approach ◽  
Questionable Research Practices ◽  
Responsible Conduct

Abstract This paper presents current work in philosophy of science in practice that focusses on practices that are detrimental to the production of scientific knowledge. The paper argues that philosophy of scientific malpractice both provides an epistemological complement to research ethics in understanding scientific misconduct and questionable research practices, and provides a new approach to how training in responsible conduct of research can be implemented.

Exonerating EDA, Expanding CDA: A Pragmatic Solution to the Replication Crisis

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dustin Fife ◽  
Joseph Lee Rodgers
Keyword(s):  
Data Analysis ◽  
Research Methods ◽  
Research Program ◽  
Exploratory Data Analysis ◽  
Psychological Research ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Proper Understanding ◽  
Questionable Research Practices ◽  
Replication Crisis ◽  
Exploratory Data

In light of the “replication crisis,” some (e.g., Nelson, Simmons, & Simonsohn, 2018) advocate for greater policing and transparency in research methods. Others (Baumeister, 2016; Finkel, Eastwick, & Reis, 2017; Goldin-meadow, 2016; Levenson, 2017) argue against rigid requirements that may inadvertently restrict discovery. We embrace both positions and argue that proper understanding and implementation of the well-established paradigm of Exploratory Data Analysis (EDA; Tukey, 1977) is necessary to push beyond the replication crisis. Unfortunately, many don’t realize EDA exists (Goldin-Meadow, 2016), fail to understand the philosophy and proper tools for exploration (Baumeister, 2016), or reject EDA as unscientific (Lindsay, 2015). EDA’s mistreatment is unfortunate, and is usually based on misunderstanding the nature and goal of EDA. We develop an expanded typology that situates EDA, CDA, and rough CDA in the same framework with fishing, p-hacking, and HARKing, and argue that most, if not all, questionable research practices (QRPs) would be resolved by understanding and implementing the EDA/CDA gradient. We argue most psychological research is “rough CDA,” which has often and inadvertently used the wrong tools. We conclude with guidelines about how these typologies can be integrated into a cumulative research program that is necessary to move beyond the replication crisis.

scholarly journals Psychology and Law, Meet Open Science

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bradley David McAuliff ◽  
Melanie B. Fessinger ◽  
Anthony Perillo ◽  
Jennifer Torkildson Perillo
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
False Positive ◽  
Psychological Research ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Next Generation ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Questionable Research Practices ◽  
Psychology And Law ◽  
Open Materials

As the field of psychology and law begins to embrace more transparent and accessible science, many questions arise about what open science actually is and how to do it. In this chapter, we contextualize this reform by examining fundamental concerns about psychological research—irreproducibility and replication failures, false-positive errors, and questionable research practices—that threaten its validity and credibility. Next, we turn to psychology’s response by reviewing the concept of open science and explaining how to implement specific practices—preregistration, registered reports, open materials/data/code, and open access publishing—designed to make research more transparent and accessible. We conclude by weighing the implications of open science for the field of psychology and law, specifically with respect to how we conduct and evaluate research, as well as how we train the next generation of psychological scientists and share scientific findings in applied settings.

scholarly journals Factors Associated with Scientific Misconduct and Questionable Research Practices in Health Professions Education

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lauren A. Maggio ◽  
Ting Dong ◽  
Erik W. Driessen ◽  
Anthony R. Artino
Keyword(s):  
Regression Analysis ◽  
Scientific Misconduct ◽  
Linear Regression Analysis ◽  
Health Professions ◽  
Health Professions Education ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Questionable Research Practices ◽  
Publication Pressure ◽  
Frequency Score

AbstractIntroductionEngaging in scientific misconduct and questionable research practices (QRPs) is a noted problem across fields, including health professions education (HPE). To mitigate these practices, other disciplines have enacted strategies based on researcher characteristics and practice factors. Thus, to inform HPE, this article seeks to determine which researcher characteristics and practice factors, if any, might explain the frequency of irresponsible research practices.MethodIn 2017, a cross-sectional survey of HPE researchers was conducted. The survey included 66 items derived from two published QRP surveys and a publication pressure scale adapted from the literature. The study outcome was the self-reported misconduct frequency score, which is a weighted mean score for each respondent on all misconduct and QRP items. Statistical analysis included descriptive statistics, correlation analysis, and multiple linear regression analysis.Results and DiscussionIn total, 590 researchers took the survey. Results from the regression analysis indicated that researcher age had a negative association with the misconduct frequency score (b = −.01, t = −2.91, p<.05) suggesting that older researchers tended to have lower misconduct frequency scores. Publication pressure (b = .20, t = 7.82, p<.001) and number of publications (b = .001, t = 3.27, p<.01) had positive associations with the misconduct frequency score. The greater the publication pressure or the more publications a researcher reported, the higher the misconduct frequency score. Overall, the explanatory variables accounted for 21% of the variance in the misconduct frequency score, and publication pressure was the strongest predictor. These findings provide an evidence base from which HPE might tailor strategies to address scientific misconduct and QRPs.

Measuring the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices With Incentives for Truth Telling

2012 ◽  
Vol 23 (5) ◽  
pp. 524-532 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leslie K. John ◽  
George Loewenstein ◽  
Drazen Prelec
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Misconduct ◽  
Estimation Methods ◽  
Truth Telling ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Questionable Research Practices ◽  
Media Attention ◽  
Elicitation Format ◽  
The Impact

Cases of clear scientific misconduct have received significant media attention recently, but less flagrantly questionable research practices may be more prevalent and, ultimately, more damaging to the academic enterprise. Using an anonymous elicitation format supplemented by incentives for honest reporting, we surveyed over 2,000 psychologists about their involvement in questionable research practices. The impact of truth-telling incentives on self-admissions of questionable research practices was positive, and this impact was greater for practices that respondents judged to be less defensible. Combining three different estimation methods, we found that the percentage of respondents who have engaged in questionable practices was surprisingly high. This finding suggests that some questionable practices may constitute the prevailing research norm.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document