scholarly journals Grant writing and grant peer review as questionable research practices

F1000Research ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 1126
Author(s):  
Stijn Conix ◽  
Andreas De Block ◽  
Krist Vaesen
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Codes Of Conduct ◽  
Moral Values ◽  
Grant Writing ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Questionable Research Practices

A large part of governmental research funding is currently distributed through the peer review of project proposals. In this paper, we argue that such funding systems incentivize and even force researchers to violate five moral values, each of which is central to commonly used scientific codes of conduct. Our argument complements existing epistemic arguments against peer-review project funding systems and, accordingly, strengthens the mounting calls for reform of these systems.

scholarly journals Grant writing and grant peer review as questionable research practices

F1000Research ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 1126
Author(s):  
Stijn Conix ◽  
Andreas De Block ◽  
Krist Vaesen
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Codes Of Conduct ◽  
Moral Values ◽  
Grant Writing ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Questionable Research Practices

A large part of governmental research funding is currently distributed through the peer review of project proposals. In this paper, we argue that such funding systems incentivize and even force researchers to violate five moral values, each of which is central to commonly used scientific codes of conduct. Our argument complements existing epistemic arguments against peer-review project funding systems and, accordingly, strengthens the mounting calls for reform of these systems.

scholarly journals Announcing a New Registered Report Article Type at the Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research

2022 ◽  
pp. 1-4
Author(s):  
Holly L. Storkel ◽  
Frederick J. Gallun
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Publication Bias ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Scientific Publications ◽  
Hearing Research ◽  
Questionable Research Practices ◽  
Structural Problems ◽  
Article Type

Purpose: This editorial introduces the new registered reports article type for the Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research . The goal of registered reports is to create a structural solution to address issues of publication bias toward results that are unexpected and sensational, questionable research practices that are used to produce novel results, and a peer-review process that occurs at the end of the research process when changes in fundamental design are difficult or impossible to implement. Conclusion: Registered reports can be a positive addition to scientific publications by addressing issues of publication bias, questionable research practices, and the late influence of peer review. This article type does so by requiring reviewers and authors to agree in advance that the experimental design is solid, the questions are interesting, and the results will be publishable regardless of the outcome. This procedure ensures that replication studies and null results make it into the published literature and that authors are not incentivized to alter their analyses based on the results that they obtain. Registered reports represent an ongoing commitment to research integrity and finding structural solutions to structural problems inherent in a research and publishing landscape in which publications are such a high-stakes aspect of individual and institutional success.

scholarly journals Questionable research practices following pre-registration

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ayumi Ikeda ◽  
Haoqin Xu ◽  
Naoto FUJI ◽  
Siqi Zhu ◽  
Yuki Yamada
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Research Protocol ◽  
Next Generation ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Questionable Research Practices ◽  
History Of

The credibility of psychological findings can be undermined by a history of questionable research practices (QRPs) of researchers. One remedy for this problem is the use of the pre-registration of studies in which a research protocol is registered before the experiment starts. However, the current style of pre-registration can be negatively affected by other QRPs. The purpose of this paper was to demonstrate the ability to engage in QRPs even after a study has been pre-registered. In the demonstration study, we used a total of eight QRPs to obtain statistically meaningful results that supported an ad hoc hypothesis. Major system updates such as pre-registration, peer review, and evaluation are required to address these harmful practices. We hope that the present demonstration study gives momentum to further discussions on next-generation research practices.

Skin in the Game: Personal Accountability and Journal Peer Review

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 330-338
Author(s):  
Donald F. Sacco ◽  
Samuel V. Bruton ◽  
Mitch Brown ◽  
Mary M. Medlin
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Motivational Factors ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Questionable Research Practices ◽  
Blind Review ◽  
Tentative Evidence ◽  
Open Review ◽  
Personal Accountability

Two preregistered studies explored the likelihood paper reviewers would request clarification from authors regarding potential questionable research practices (QRPs). Study 1 participants were instructed to imagine reviewing a journal manuscript as either a coauthor or peer reviewer and rate the extent to which they would request clarification from the author when encountering potential QRPs. Participants reported greater likelihood of requesting clarification when assigned to the coauthor relative to the peer reviewer role. Study 2 participants were assigned to either an anonymous or open-review condition and rated the extent to which they would seek clarification from an author regarding potential QRPs. Men (but not women) in the open review condition reported greater likelihood of seeking clarification about potential QRPs than men in the blind review condition. Results provide tentative evidence that motivational factors influence the peer review process, and suggestions are made for improving peer review practices.

Towards guaranteed data-integrity: A method of preventing Questionable Research Practices

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dick Bierman ◽  
Jacob Jolij
Keyword(s):  
Real Time ◽  
Open Data ◽  
Data Integrity ◽  
Drop Out ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Major Aspect ◽  
Questionable Research Practices ◽  
Blockchain Technology ◽  
Integrity System ◽  
Secure Server

We have tested the feasibility of a method to prevent the occurrence of so-called Questionable Research Practices (QRP). A part from embedded pre-registration the major aspect of the system is real-time uploading of data on a secure server. We outline the method, discuss the drop-out treatment and compare it to the Born-open data method, and report on our preliminary experiences. We also discuss the extension of the data-integrity system from secure server to use of blockchain technology.

Dealing with imperfect elicitation results

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rens van de Schoot ◽  
Elian Griffioen ◽  
Sonja Désirée Winter
Keyword(s):  
Statistical Parameter ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Popular Method ◽  
Questionable Research Practices ◽  
Present Information

The trial-and-roulette method is a popular method to extract experts’ beliefs about a statistical parameter. However, most studies examining the validity of this method only use ‘perfect’ elicitation results. In practice, it is sometimes hard to obtain such neat elicitation results. In our project about predicting fraud and questionable research practices among PhD candidates, we ran into issues with imperfect elicitation results. The goal of the current chapter is to provide an over-view of the solutions we used for dealing with these imperfect results, so that others can benefit from our experience. We present information about the nature of our project, the reasons for the imperfect results, and how we resolved these sup-ported by annotated R-syntax.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document