You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason:

Only users who are logged in using ORCID can make a change or add a contribution. Please login here.

Back

Edit a theme

We invite you to share your knowledge and write about a theme which you find relevant, interesting or controversial. You can share your own expertise, present your new initiative, write a commentary about one of the resources hosted on The Embassy, or simply describe a topic that you think should be shared with the research community.

Before you submit, please be aware of our community guidelines.

Theme

QRPs are actions that concern trespassing "methodological principles that threathen the relevance, valdity, trustworthiness, or efficiency of the study at issue".<ref>L.M. Bouter, J. Tijdink, N. Axelsen, B.C. Martinson, G. ter Riet. Ranking major and minor research misbehaviors: results from a survey among participants of four World Conferences on Research Integrity. Res Integrity Peer Rev, 1 (1) (2016), p. 17</ref> QRPs can be divided over four main areas of the research process: the study design, data collection, reporting and collaboration. QRPs are estimated to occur far more frequently then serious misconduct, and therefore pose a threat to trust and truth in science. Under the current system QRPs are rewarded in the form of a higher number and more prestigious publications. Indeed, sloppy science as described above appears to have a strong 'fitness to survive'. <ref>Smaldino, P. E. & McElreath, R. The natural selection of bad science. R. Soc. Open Sci. 3, 160384 (2016)</ref>
<references />

==QRPs==
According to research integrity experts who participated in a survey, <ref>L.M. Bouter, J. Tijdink, N. Axelsen, B.C. Martinson, G. ter Riet. Ranking major and minor research misbehaviors: results from a survey among participants of four World Conferences on Research Integrity. Res Integrity Peer Rev, 1 (1) (2016), p. 17</ref> there are a number of QRPs that occur frequently and have a high impact on science. In relation to study design, for instance, QRPs include presenting misleading information in a grant application or ignoring risks of unexpected findings or safety risks to study participants, workers or environment. Under data collection falls behaviour such as collecting more data when noticing that statistical significance is almost reached or keeping inadequate notes of the research process. in relation to reporting, examples of QRPs are hypothesizing after the results are known (HARKing), concealing results that contradict earlier findings, or not publishing a study with negative results. Moreover, selective citing to enhance your own findings or pleasing editors and colleagues is reported to often occur. QRPs that fall under collaboration are demanding or accepting authorship for which you do not qualify and reviewing your own papers. In addition, the misbehaviour that is estimated to occur the most and have a high impact on truth is insufficiently supervising junior coworkers. The misbehaviour that occurs the most and has the highest impact on trust is using published ideas of others without referencing.

=='''Prevention'''==
A way to counter QRPs could be to create awareness about research integrity issues and alter the current reward system. Instead of rewarding the number of publications, alternative aspects that could be rewarded include a researcher's commitment to pre-registration, data sharing and open science.
<references />

Related To

Edit Theme: Theme:883697c8-d319-4224-991e-ce063d648efd

Edit a theme