The Social Cost of Scientific Misconduct and Questionable Research Practices

2006 ◽  
Author(s):  
William Gardner
Keyword(s):  
Social Cost ◽  
Scientific Misconduct ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Questionable Research Practices ◽  
The Social

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.

scholarly journals Hypothesize Once, Plan Twice

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erin Michelle Buchanan ◽  
Kathrene D Valentine ◽  
Jeffrey Michael Pavlacic
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Strong Relationship ◽  
Statistical Analyses ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Questionable Research Practices ◽  
The Social ◽  
Study Plan

Preregistration has been touted as the solution to the “reproducibility crisis” (Wagenmakers, Wetzels, Borsboom, van der Maas, & Kievit, 2012) and part of the “renaissance” in the social sciences (Nelson, Simmons, & Simonsohn, 2018). For preregistration, researchers describe the study plan before the data is collected or the analyses have been examined. The focus of preregistration has been on solving prediction versus postdiction (i.e., hypothesizing after results are known or HARKING; Kerr, 1998) and negating flexibility in statistical analyses (i.e., p-hacking and questionable research practices; Simmons, Nelson, & Simonsohn, 2011). We suggest that instead of solely focusing on preregistration, researchers should concentrate on adequate plans for research detailing a strong relationship between hypotheses, methods, data, and analyses. While preregistration encourages this process, more effort should focus on the research blueprint to engage in meaningful and, potentially, reproducible science.

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.

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 Nine Ways to Detect Possible Scientific Misconduct in Research with Small (N < 200) Samples

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Walter R. Schumm ◽  
◽  
Duane W. Crawford ◽  
Lorenza Lockett ◽  
Abdullah AlRashed ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Graduate Students ◽  
Scientific Misconduct ◽  
Small Samples ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Questionable Research Practices ◽  
Small N ◽  
Using Data

Some scientists have fabricated their data, yet have published their fake results in peer-reviewed journals. How can we detect patterns typical of fabricated research? Nine relatively less complex ways for detecting potentially fabricated data in small samples (N < 200), are presented, using data from articles published since 1999 as illustrations. Even with smaller samples, there are several ways in which scholars, as well as their undergraduate and graduate students, can detect possible fabrication of data as well as other questionable research practices (QRPs). However, with larger samples, other techniques may be needed.

scholarly journals Better Understanding the Population Size and Stigmatization of Psychologists Using Questionable Research Practices

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas William Fox ◽  
Nathan Honeycutt ◽  
Lee Jussim
Keyword(s):  
Social Networks ◽  
Data Collection ◽  
Social Environment ◽  
Scientific Literature ◽  
Scale Up ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Questionable Research Practices ◽  
The Past ◽  
The Social ◽  
Insight Into

There has been low confidence in the replicability and reproducibility of published psychological findings. Previous work has demonstrated that a population of psychologists exists that have used questionable research practices (QRPs), or behaviors during data collection, analysis, and publication that can increase the number of false-positive findings in the scientific literature. The present work sought to estimate the current size of the QRP using population of American psychologists and to identify if this sub-population of scientists is stigmatized. Using a direct estimator, we estimate 18.8% of American psychologists have used at least one QRP in the past 12 months. This estimate rises to 24.40% when using the generalized network scale up estimator, an estimating method that utilizes the academic social networks of participants. Furthermore, attitudes of psychologists towards QRP users, and observed behavioral data collected from self-reported QRP users suggest that QRP users are a stigmatized sub-population of psychologists. Together, these findings provide better insight into how many psychologists use questionable practices and how they exist in the social environment.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document