Exploring the Gray Area: Similarities and Differences in Questionable Research Practices (QRPs) Across Main Areas of Research

Abstract

This paper explores the gray area of questionable research practices (QRPs) between responsible conduct of research (RCR) and severe research misconduct in the form of fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism (FFP) (Steneck 2006). Up until now, we have had very little knowledge of disciplinary similarities and differences in QRPs. The paper is the first systematic account of variances and similarities. It reports on the findings of a comprehensive study comprising 22 focus groups on practices and perceptions of QRPs across main areas of research. The paper supports the relevance of the idea of epistemic cultures (Knorr Cetina 1999), also when it comes to QRPs. It shows which QRPs researchers from different areas of research (humanities, social sciences, medical sciences, natural sciences, and technical sciences) report as the most severe and prevalent within their fields. Furthermore, it shows where in the research process these self-reported QRPs can be found. This is done by using a five-phase analytical model of the research process (idea generation, research design, data collection, data analysis, scientific publication and reporting). The paper shows that QRPs are closely connected to the distinct research practices within the different areas of research. Many QRPs can therefore only be found within one area of research, and QRPs that cut across main areas often cover relatively different practices. In a few cases, QRPs in one area are considered good research practice in another.

Misconduct and Questionable Research Practices: The Ethics of Quantitative Data Handling and Reporting in Applied Linguistics

“…In the middle lies a gray area of research practices that fall short of best practices and may be ethically questionable in some situations (i.e., QRPs; CSEPP et al., 2009). What qualifies as a QRP and the severity of the practice will vary somewhat by field (CSEPP et al., 2009; Ravn & Sørenson, 2021), which makes disciplinary expertise needed in finer‐grained discernment between QRPs and acceptable practices in RCR. Of course, not all shortcomings are indicative of some nefarious intent.…”

“…QRPs are defined for the purposes of the present study as a wide range of activities that researchers engage in, whether knowingly or unknowingly, that run counter to the standards of rigor and transparency necessary for optimal progress in a given domain (Fanelli, 2009; Hall & Martin, 2019; Steneck, 2006). There is no exhaustive list of QRPs, though several scholars have sought to catalog and classify this set of behaviors (e.g., Hall & Martin, 2019; Ravn & Sørensen, 2021; Tauginienė et al., 2019).…”

Heterogeneity estimates in a biased world

“…For meta-analyses on continuous outcome measures we demonstrated here that the performance of heterogeneity estimators can differ considerably when effect sizes in the primary studies are distorted by publication bias and p -hacking, which is to be expected in many research domains [ 53 – 55 ]. Under various levels of distortions in the effect sizes of primary studies, heterogeneity estimates based on DL fared well in terms of bias and RMSE.…”

Psychology Education Reform and Quality Cultivation of College Music Major From the Perspective of Entrepreneurship Education

“…In this kind of education, students will not only emphasize the learning of skill-based content but also pay attention to music itself. To cultivate students’ overall humanistic quality, Harvard University takes up a large proportion of the humanities, among which there are 45 “literature and art” courses and 7 music courses ( Ravn and Srensen, 2021 ).…”