Literature DB >> 22508865

Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling.

Leslie K John1, George Loewenstein, Drazen Prelec.   

Abstract

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.

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22508865     DOI: 10.1177/0956797611430953

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychol Sci        ISSN: 0956-7976


  251 in total

Review 1.  Research misconduct and data fraud in clinical trials: prevalence and causal factors.

Authors:  Stephen L George
Journal:  Int J Clin Oncol       Date:  2015-08-20       Impact factor: 3.402

2.  How scientists fool themselves - and how they can stop.

Authors:  Regina Nuzzo
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2015-10-08       Impact factor: 49.962

3.  Data fraud in clinical trials.

Authors:  Stephen L George; Marc Buyse
Journal:  Clin Investig (Lond)       Date:  2015

4.  Replication studies: Bad copy.

Authors:  Ed Yong
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2012-05-16       Impact factor: 49.962

5.  US studies may overestimate effect sizes in softer research.

Authors:  Daniele Fanelli; John P A Ioannidis
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2013-08-26       Impact factor: 11.205

6.  Introduction to the special issue on reliability and replication in cognitive and affective neuroscience research.

Authors:  Deanna M Barch; Tal Yarkoni
Journal:  Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 3.282

7.  Research accomplishments that are too good to be true.

Authors:  John P A Ioannidis
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2013-10-16       Impact factor: 17.440

Review 8.  Scientists Admitting to Plagiarism: A Meta-analysis of Surveys.

Authors:  Vanja Pupovac; Daniele Fanelli
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2014-10-29       Impact factor: 3.525

Review 9.  Top ten errors of statistical analysis in observational studies for cancer research.

Authors:  A Carmona-Bayonas; P Jimenez-Fonseca; A Fernández-Somoano; F Álvarez-Manceñido; E Castañón; A Custodio; F A de la Peña; R M Payo; L P Valiente
Journal:  Clin Transl Oncol       Date:  2017-12-07       Impact factor: 3.405

10.  Stewardship of Integrity in Scientific Communication.

Authors:  Kurt H Albertine
Journal:  Anat Rec (Hoboken)       Date:  2018-09       Impact factor: 2.064

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.