Questionable Research Practices Revisited

Abstract

The current discussion of questionable research practices (QRPs) is meant to improve the quality of science. It is, however, important to conduct QRP studies with the same scrutiny as all research. We note problems with overestimates of QRP prevalence and the survey methods used in the frequently cited study by John, Loewenstein, and Prelec. In a survey of German psychologists, we decomposed QRP prevalence into its two multiplicative components, proportion of scientists who ever committed a behavior and, if so, how frequently they repeated this behavior across all their research. The resulting prevalence estimates are lower by order of magnitudes. We conclude that inflated prevalence estimates, due to problematic interpretation of survey data, can create a descriptive norm (QRP is normal) that can counteract the injunctive norm to minimize QRPs and unwantedly damage the image of behavioral sciences, which are essential to dealing with many societal problems.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 279 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.