Measuring the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices With Incentives for Truth Telling
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 re...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Psychological science 2012-05, Vol.23 (5), p.524-532 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 532 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 5 |
| container_start_page | 524 |
| container_title | Psychological science |
| container_volume | 23 |
| creator | John, Leslie K. Loewenstein, George Prelec, Drazen |
| description | 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. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1177/0956797611430953 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1024211034</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>41489734</jstor_id><sage_id>10.1177_0956797611430953</sage_id><sourcerecordid>41489734</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c450t-50b72a9587ab4a00d76233b8b4395e74ada8384766cac04cdb9b21898357fde73</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkctLHEEQxpuQENfH3YthQAQvo_1-HIP4AoOJrHgKQ01PjTvL7IzpnhH87-1hNyYIgfSlH_Wrr77qImSf0RPGjDmlTmnjjGZMinQWH8iMSW1yxy39SGZTOJ_iW2Q7xiVNywj9mWxxrqi1Ws3Iz28IcQxN95gNC8y-B3yGFjuPWV9nP0aMQ9N3ULaY3WFECH6RGPBD4zFmD82wyK4T3A3Nc7rXfcjmYUyPc2zbpLlLPtXQRtzb7Dvk_uJ8fnaV39xeXp99vcm9VHTIFS0NB6esgVICpZXRXIjSllI4hUZCBVZYabT24Kn0VelKzqyzQpm6QiN2yPFa9yn0vybTxaqJPnmADvsxFoxyyRmjQv4HyoRjlstJ9fAduuzH0KVGJkqm8lrYRNE15UMfY8C6eArNCsJLgoppSsX7KaWULxvhsVxh9ZbweywJONoAED20dYDON_EPp5KK5lMz-ZqL8Ih_u_tn4YM1v4xDH970JJPWmfQ5rzehrkU</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1014983638</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Measuring the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices With Incentives for Truth Telling</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><source>SAGE Journals</source><creator>John, Leslie K. ; Loewenstein, George ; Prelec, Drazen</creator><creatorcontrib>John, Leslie K. ; Loewenstein, George ; Prelec, Drazen</creatorcontrib><description>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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0956-7976</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1467-9280</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/0956797611430953</identifier><identifier>PMID: 22508865</identifier><identifier>CODEN: PSYSET</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Biological and medical sciences ; Bleeding time ; Correlations ; Credibility ; Data analysis ; Data Collection ; Estimate reliability ; Estimation ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; General aspects ; Geometric mean ; Humans ; Judgement ; Measurement ; Methodology ; Motivation ; Psychological research ; Psychologists ; Psychology ; Psychology - standards ; Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry ; Psychology. Psychophysiology ; Psychometrics ; Research - standards ; Research fraud ; Research methods ; Scientific Misconduct - statistics & numerical data ; Truth ; Truth Disclosure ; Validity</subject><ispartof>Psychological science, 2012-05, Vol.23 (5), p.524-532</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2012 Association for Psychological Science</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2012</rights><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC. May 2012</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c450t-50b72a9587ab4a00d76233b8b4395e74ada8384766cac04cdb9b21898357fde73</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c450t-50b72a9587ab4a00d76233b8b4395e74ada8384766cac04cdb9b21898357fde73</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/41489734$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/41489734$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,803,21819,27924,27925,43621,43622,58017,58250</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=25953624$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22508865$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>John, Leslie K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Loewenstein, George</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Prelec, Drazen</creatorcontrib><title>Measuring the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices With Incentives for Truth Telling</title><title>Psychological science</title><addtitle>Psychol Sci</addtitle><description>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.</description><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Bleeding time</subject><subject>Correlations</subject><subject>Credibility</subject><subject>Data analysis</subject><subject>Data Collection</subject><subject>Estimate reliability</subject><subject>Estimation</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>General aspects</subject><subject>Geometric mean</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Judgement</subject><subject>Measurement</subject><subject>Methodology</subject><subject>Motivation</subject><subject>Psychological research</subject><subject>Psychologists</subject><subject>Psychology</subject><subject>Psychology - standards</subject><subject>Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry</subject><subject>Psychology. Psychophysiology</subject><subject>Psychometrics</subject><subject>Research - standards</subject><subject>Research fraud</subject><subject>Research methods</subject><subject>Scientific Misconduct - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Truth</subject><subject>Truth Disclosure</subject><subject>Validity</subject><issn>0956-7976</issn><issn>1467-9280</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkctLHEEQxpuQENfH3YthQAQvo_1-HIP4AoOJrHgKQ01PjTvL7IzpnhH87-1hNyYIgfSlH_Wrr77qImSf0RPGjDmlTmnjjGZMinQWH8iMSW1yxy39SGZTOJ_iW2Q7xiVNywj9mWxxrqi1Ws3Iz28IcQxN95gNC8y-B3yGFjuPWV9nP0aMQ9N3ULaY3WFECH6RGPBD4zFmD82wyK4T3A3Nc7rXfcjmYUyPc2zbpLlLPtXQRtzb7Dvk_uJ8fnaV39xeXp99vcm9VHTIFS0NB6esgVICpZXRXIjSllI4hUZCBVZYabT24Kn0VelKzqyzQpm6QiN2yPFa9yn0vybTxaqJPnmADvsxFoxyyRmjQv4HyoRjlstJ9fAduuzH0KVGJkqm8lrYRNE15UMfY8C6eArNCsJLgoppSsX7KaWULxvhsVxh9ZbweywJONoAED20dYDON_EPp5KK5lMz-ZqL8Ih_u_tn4YM1v4xDH970JJPWmfQ5rzehrkU</recordid><startdate>20120501</startdate><enddate>20120501</enddate><creator>John, Leslie K.</creator><creator>Loewenstein, George</creator><creator>Prelec, Drazen</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>Sage Publications</general><general>SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20120501</creationdate><title>Measuring the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices With Incentives for Truth Telling</title><author>John, Leslie K. ; Loewenstein, George ; Prelec, Drazen</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c450t-50b72a9587ab4a00d76233b8b4395e74ada8384766cac04cdb9b21898357fde73</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Bleeding time</topic><topic>Correlations</topic><topic>Credibility</topic><topic>Data analysis</topic><topic>Data Collection</topic><topic>Estimate reliability</topic><topic>Estimation</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>General aspects</topic><topic>Geometric mean</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Judgement</topic><topic>Measurement</topic><topic>Methodology</topic><topic>Motivation</topic><topic>Psychological research</topic><topic>Psychologists</topic><topic>Psychology</topic><topic>Psychology - standards</topic><topic>Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry</topic><topic>Psychology. Psychophysiology</topic><topic>Psychometrics</topic><topic>Research - standards</topic><topic>Research fraud</topic><topic>Research methods</topic><topic>Scientific Misconduct - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Truth</topic><topic>Truth Disclosure</topic><topic>Validity</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>John, Leslie K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Loewenstein, George</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Prelec, Drazen</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Psychological science</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>John, Leslie K.</au><au>Loewenstein, George</au><au>Prelec, Drazen</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Measuring the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices With Incentives for Truth Telling</atitle><jtitle>Psychological science</jtitle><addtitle>Psychol Sci</addtitle><date>2012-05-01</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>23</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>524</spage><epage>532</epage><pages>524-532</pages><issn>0956-7976</issn><eissn>1467-9280</eissn><coden>PSYSET</coden><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.</abstract><cop>Los Angeles, CA</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><pmid>22508865</pmid><doi>10.1177/0956797611430953</doi><tpages>9</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0956-7976 |
| ispartof | Psychological science, 2012-05, Vol.23 (5), p.524-532 |
| issn | 0956-7976 1467-9280 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1024211034 |
| source | MEDLINE; Jstor Complete Legacy; SAGE Journals |
| subjects | Biological and medical sciences Bleeding time Correlations Credibility Data analysis Data Collection Estimate reliability Estimation Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology General aspects Geometric mean Humans Judgement Measurement Methodology Motivation Psychological research Psychologists Psychology Psychology - standards Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry Psychology. Psychophysiology Psychometrics Research - standards Research fraud Research methods Scientific Misconduct - statistics & numerical data Truth Truth Disclosure Validity |
| title | Measuring the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices With Incentives for Truth Telling |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-03T15%3A19%3A21IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Measuring%20the%20Prevalence%20of%20Questionable%20Research%20Practices%20With%20Incentives%20for%20Truth%20Telling&rft.jtitle=Psychological%20science&rft.au=John,%20Leslie%20K.&rft.date=2012-05-01&rft.volume=23&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=524&rft.epage=532&rft.pages=524-532&rft.issn=0956-7976&rft.eissn=1467-9280&rft.coden=PSYSET&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/0956797611430953&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E41489734%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1014983638&rft_id=info:pmid/22508865&rft_jstor_id=41489734&rft_sage_id=10.1177_0956797611430953&rfr_iscdi=true |