User:Kis andrea/sandbox

Questionable research practice

Questionable research practices (QRPs) are scientific practices that are regarded by many as unethical, but generally not considered research misconduct.

Research practices range from responsible conduct of research to research misconduct, with questionable research practices in between. Responsible conduct of research refers to doing research in accordance with the scientific code of conduct. On the other end, misconduct includes improper or unacceptable actions in any part of research such as falsification and fabrication of data, or plagiarism. Questionable research practices form a grey zone and even the definition is sorrounded by ambiguity: The several definitions of questionable research practices are usually quite broad and depend on their acceptance greatly depends on the scientific traditions of different disciplines, countries, and research methodologies. An early definition of questionable practices was provided by a National Academies of Science committee in 1992 :

“…actions that violate traditional values of the research enterprise and that may be detrimental to the research process.”

Onset
Although research misconduct cases received quite some attention since as early as the 1980s, research on questionable research practices was lagging behind for a long time. The National Academies of Science committee report is one of the first published mentions.

Emergence of the reproducibility crisis
One of the first and most publicized examples of questionable research practice cases could be the case of Daryl Bem. In 2011 Daryl Bem, a prominent professor of social psychology claimed that humans can show psychological responses before experiencing stimuli. In essence, people can predict the future. The study received wide-spread coverage: Media as well as scientific publications reflected on the results which hence became widely discussed. While some welcomed the findings, others had concerns. Several groups failed to replicate the effects, statisticians immediately pointed to issues with methodological and analytic procedures. Concerns with the lack of transparent, pre-defined methodology and statistical analysis Bem used turned into a much broader discussion about the (lack of) replicability or reproducibility of scientific results, leading to a narrative of science being in a replication crisis.

Bem later commented “''If you looked at all my past experiments, they were always rhetorical devices. I gathered data to show how my point would be made. I used data as a point of persuasion, and I never really worried about, ‘Will this replicate or will this not?’''”.

Working with erroneous methodological and analytical procedures are not considered misconduct. However, an increasing number of researchers argue that they are questionable research practices that diminish the reliability of scientific findings. After Bem’s controversy more and more questionable practices came to light, shifting attention to the importance of fighting misbehavior. According to advocates of the reproducibility crisis narrative, growing issues with research practices lead to most published results being unreliable.

Taxonomies
The increasing tractum generated by the reproducibility crisis narrative and the growing open science movement lead to a sharp increase in the number of publications addressing questionable research practices. Many of these articles aimed to explore and then categorize the types of questionable practices, resulting in several taxonomies containing dozens of recognized methodological, ethical, or other issues.