Questionable research practices following pre-registration

Ikeda, Ayumi; Xu, Huaizhe; FUJI, Naoto; Zhu, Siqi; Yamada, Yuki

doi:10.31234/osf.io/b8pw9

Cited by 14 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 57 publications

(69 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A major shortcoming of preregistration as a normative standard is that the increased transparency it provides may be more illusory than real. Under present systems of preregistration, there is still substantial room for selective reporting and researchers’ degrees of freedom (see Ikeda, Xu, Fuji, Zhu, & Yamada, 2019). For example, researchers may select which particular study or hypothesis to preregister; they may preregister a study only after running a long series of calibration tests that are not reported; they may preregister multiple studies or versions of the same study, then only report a selection; they may intentionally or unintentionally specify the hypotheses to be tested and analyses to be performed in loose terms, hence buying themselves flexibility in subsequent testing and analyses.…”

Section: Is Preregistration Sufficient For Good Science?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Preregistration Is Neither Sufficient nor Necessary for Good Science

Pham

2021

J Consum Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To address widespread perceptions of a reproducibility crisis in the social sciences, a growing number of scholars recommend the systematic preregistration of empirical studies. The purpose of this article is to contribute to an epistemological dialogue on the value of preregistration in consumer research by identifying the limitations, drawbacks, and potential adverse effects of a preregistration system. After a brief review of some of the implementation challenges that commonly arise with preregistration, we raise three levels of issues with a system of preregistration. First, we identify its limitations as a means of advancing consumer knowledge, thus questioning the sufficiency of preregistration in promoting good consumer science. Second, we elaborate on why consumer science can progress even in the absence of preregistration, thereby also questioning the necessity of preregistration in promoting good consumer science. Third, we discuss serious potential adverse effects of preregistration, both at the individual researcher level and at the level of the field as a whole. We conclude by offering a broader perspective on the narrower role that preregistration can play within the general pursuit of building robust and useful knowledge about consumers.

show abstract

Section: Is Preregistration Sufficient For Good Science?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Preregistration Is Neither Sufficient nor Necessary for Good Science

Pham

2021

J Consum Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…But not all study designs permit blinding, and neither is preregistration is a cure-all. Apart from being vulnerable to being hacked by researchers with devious intent, preregistration does not preclude the unintended use of QRPs (Ikeda et al, 2020). Also, absent systemic pressures, researchers can be surprisingly recalcitrant about making the extra efforts required by preregistration and open access (Washburn et al, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ethical Consistency and Experience: An Attempt to Influence Researcher Attitudes Toward Questionable Research Practices Through Reading Prompts

Bruton

Brown

Sacco

2019

Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the past couple of decades, the apparent widespread occurrence of Questionable Research Practices (QRPs) in scientific research has been widely discussed in the research ethics literature as a source of concern. Various ways of reducing their use have been proposed and implemented, ranging from improved training and incentives for adopting best practices to systematic reforms. This article reports on the results of two studies that investigated the efficacy of simple, psychological interventions aimed at changing researcher attitudes toward QRPs. While the interventions did not significantly modify researchers’ reactions to QRPs, they showed differential efficacy depending on scientists’ experience, suggesting complexities in researcher psychology and the ethics of QRPs that merit further study.

show abstract

“…Moreover, the authors of each micro paper can be different. I have proposed a division of labor between the pre-registration and experimental groups in Registered Reports (Ikeda, Xu, Fuji, Zhu, & Yamada, 2019;Yamada, 2018). This format of micropublication is an easy way to implement this recommendation.…”

Section: Future Benefits Of Micropublishingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Micropublishing During and After the COVID-19 Era

Yamada

2020

Collabra: Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the COVID-19 situation, social and behavioral science evidence is accumulating rapidly through online data collection, but the options to share and publish this information are scarce. As a remedy, I recommend the adoption of micropublishing in the fields of social and behavioral sciences. While micropublishing has been gaining popularity, it is not yet widely accepted or utilized by existing academic journals. Greater implementation would improve the availability of data in the immediate COVID-19 era and establish a post-COVID-19 publishing methodology that could increase researcher and practitioner engagement in real time. I recommend micropublishing in a specific manner that bifurcates an experiment's methodology or survey method from the subsequently published data based on that experiment protocol. Published findings could be presented in a series and edited as new data emerges. This publishing system promotes cumulative science. To provide a visual example that supports my argument, I created a demo journal with sample papers organized according to the structure I recommend. The demo journal has features-except a Digital Object Finder (DOI)-that make it possible to publish social and behavioral sciences research. It could be replicated for a newly established journal. Alternatively, existing journals could add a section dedicated to micropublication.

show abstract

Questionable research practices following pre-registration

Cited by 14 publications

References 57 publications

Preregistration Is Neither Sufficient nor Necessary for Good Science

Preregistration Is Neither Sufficient nor Necessary for Good Science

Ethical Consistency and Experience: An Attempt to Influence Researcher Attitudes Toward Questionable Research Practices Through Reading Prompts

Micropublishing During and After the COVID-19 Era

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About