Difference between revisions of "Theme:48185295-9e1e-41fb-ab70-948596e588d5"
From The Embassy of Good Science
(Created page with "{{Theme |Theme Type=Misconduct & Misbehaviors |Title=Questionable Research Practices in Analysis and Reporting |Is About=In a list of major and minor research misbehaviours co...") |
|||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
|Title=Questionable Research Practices in Analysis and Reporting | |Title=Questionable Research Practices in Analysis and Reporting | ||
|Is About=In a list of major and minor research misbehaviours collaboratively developed by a group of research integrity experts, the research phase ‘Reporting’ (which describes analysis and publication of results jointly) contains the most items.<ref>Bouter, L.M., Tijdink, J., Axelsen, N., Martinson, B.C. and Ter Riet, G., 2016. Ranking major and minor research misbehaviors: results from a survey among participants of four World Conferences on Research Integrity. ''Research Integrity and Peer Review'', ''1''(1), p.17.</ref> Needless to say, the potential for misbehaviors in this phase is exacerbated by the vast number of decisions researchers must take during the course of analysis and reporting. | |Is About=In a list of major and minor research misbehaviours collaboratively developed by a group of research integrity experts, the research phase ‘Reporting’ (which describes analysis and publication of results jointly) contains the most items.<ref>Bouter, L.M., Tijdink, J., Axelsen, N., Martinson, B.C. and Ter Riet, G., 2016. Ranking major and minor research misbehaviors: results from a survey among participants of four World Conferences on Research Integrity. ''Research Integrity and Peer Review'', ''1''(1), p.17.</ref> Needless to say, the potential for misbehaviors in this phase is exacerbated by the vast number of decisions researchers must take during the course of analysis and reporting. | ||
| + | <references /> | ||
|Important Because=Integrity in analysis and reporting of results is important to fully understand your data. Misbehaviors related to analysis and reporting include: | |Important Because=Integrity in analysis and reporting of results is important to fully understand your data. Misbehaviors related to analysis and reporting include: | ||
| − | # Report on data driven hypotheses without disclosure [‘HARKing’ ‐ Hypothesizing After Results are Known ‐ typically with a view to make results appear more spectacular (‘Chrysalis effect’)] | + | #Report on data driven hypotheses without disclosure [‘HARKing’ ‐ Hypothesizing After Results are Known ‐ typically with a view to make results appear more spectacular (‘Chrysalis effect’)] |
| − | # Delete data before performing data analysis without disclosure | + | #Delete data before performing data analysis without disclosure |
| − | # Selectively delete data, modify data or add fabricated data after performing initial data‐analyses [in other words: falsification or fabrication of data] | + | #Selectively delete data, modify data or add fabricated data after performing initial data‐analyses [in other words: falsification or fabrication of data] |
| − | # Perform data‐analyses not stated in the study protocol without disclosure [or in predefined data‐analysis plan – also called ‘Significance chasing’, ‘P-hacking’, ‘data dredging’, ‘fishing expedition’ or explorative subgroup analyses] | + | #Perform data‐analyses not stated in the study protocol without disclosure [or in predefined data‐analysis plan – also called ‘Significance chasing’, ‘P-hacking’, ‘data dredging’, ‘fishing expedition’ or explorative subgroup analyses] |
| − | # Report an incorrect downwardly rounded p‐value [e.g. by reporting a p value of .054 as being less than .05] | + | #Report an incorrect downwardly rounded p‐value [e.g. by reporting a p value of .054 as being less than .05] |
| − | # Not report all study protocol‐stipulated results [in the aggregate of all published reports on the study at issue] | + | #Not report all study protocol‐stipulated results [in the aggregate of all published reports on the study at issue] |
| − | # Not publish a valid ‘negative’ study [in a form that is publicly available or accessible behind a paywall (article, report, website etc.)] | + | #Not publish a valid ‘negative’ study [in a form that is publicly available or accessible behind a paywall (article, report, website etc.)] |
| − | # Report an unexpected finding as having been hypothesized from the start | + | #Report an unexpected finding as having been hypothesized from the start |
| − | # Conceal results that contradict your earlier findings or convictions | + | #Conceal results that contradict your earlier findings or convictions |
| − | # Not report clearly relevant details of study methods | + | #Not report clearly relevant details of study methods |
| − | # Not report replication problems | + | #Not report replication problems |
| − | # Selectively cite to enhance your own findings or convictions | + | #Selectively cite to enhance your own findings or convictions |
| − | # Selectively cite to please editors, reviewers or colleagues | + | #Selectively cite to please editors, reviewers or colleagues |
| − | # Selectively cite or cite your own work to improve citation metrics [e.g. Impact Factor, H‐index] | + | #Selectively cite or cite your own work to improve citation metrics [e.g. Impact Factor, H‐index] |
| − | # Let your convictions influence the conclusions substantially | + | #Let your convictions influence the conclusions substantially |
| − | # Insufficiently report study flaws and limitations | + | #Insufficiently report study flaws and limitations |
| − | # Spread study results over more papers than needed [‘salami slicing’] | + | #Spread study results over more papers than needed [‘salami slicing’] |
| − | # Duplicate publication without disclosure | + | #Duplicate publication without disclosure |
| − | # Re‐use of previously published data without disclosure [which may lead to double counting in meta‐analyses] | + | #Re‐use of previously published data without disclosure [which may lead to double counting in meta‐analyses] |
| − | # Modify the results or conclusions of a study due to pressure of a sponsor [commercial or not‐for‐profit funder of the study] | + | #Modify the results or conclusions of a study due to pressure of a sponsor [commercial or not‐for‐profit funder of the study] |
| − | # Failure to disclose a sponsor of the study | + | #Failure to disclose a sponsor of the study |
| − | # Failure to disclose a relevant financial or intellectual conflict of interest [in publications, when reviewing grant proposals, or evaluating persons or institutions] | + | #Failure to disclose a relevant financial or intellectual conflict of interest [in publications, when reviewing grant proposals, or evaluating persons or institutions] |
| − | # Handle existing conflicts of interest inadequately | + | #Handle existing conflicts of interest inadequately |
| − | # Communicate results to the general public before a peer reviewed publication is available | + | #Communicate results to the general public before a peer reviewed publication is available |
| − | # Deliberately communicate findings inaccurately in the media or during presentations | + | #Deliberately communicate findings inaccurately in the media or during presentations |
| − | # Make no clear distinction between personal views and professional comments (List from Bouter et al 2016<ref>Bouter, L.M., Tijdink, J., Axelsen, N., Martinson, B.C. and Ter Riet, G., 2016. Ranking major and minor research misbehaviors: results from a survey among participants of four World Conferences on Research Integrity. ''Research Integrity and Peer Review'', ''1''(1), p.17</ref>) | + | #Make no clear distinction between personal views and professional comments (List from Bouter et al 2016<ref>Bouter, L.M., Tijdink, J., Axelsen, N., Martinson, B.C. and Ter Riet, G., 2016. Ranking major and minor research misbehaviors: results from a survey among participants of four World Conferences on Research Integrity. ''Research Integrity and Peer Review'', ''1''(1), p.17</ref>) |
| + | <references /> | ||
|Important For=Early career researchers; Junior researchers; Senior researchers; Researchers; Scientists | |Important For=Early career researchers; Junior researchers; Senior researchers; Researchers; Scientists | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 09:06, 28 October 2020
ThemesQuestionable Research Practices in Analysis and Reporting
What is this about?
In a list of major and minor research misbehaviours collaboratively developed by a group of research integrity experts, the research phase ‘Reporting’ (which describes analysis and publication of results jointly) contains the most items.[1] Needless to say, the potential for misbehaviors in this phase is exacerbated by the vast number of decisions researchers must take during the course of analysis and reporting.
- ↑ Bouter, L.M., Tijdink, J., Axelsen, N., Martinson, B.C. and Ter Riet, G., 2016. Ranking major and minor research misbehaviors: results from a survey among participants of four World Conferences on Research Integrity. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 1(1), p.17.
Why is this important?
Integrity in analysis and reporting of results is important to fully understand your data. Misbehaviors related to analysis and reporting include:
- Report on data driven hypotheses without disclosure [‘HARKing’ ‐ Hypothesizing After Results are Known ‐ typically with a view to make results appear more spectacular (‘Chrysalis effect’)]
- Delete data before performing data analysis without disclosure
- Selectively delete data, modify data or add fabricated data after performing initial data‐analyses [in other words: falsification or fabrication of data]
- Perform data‐analyses not stated in the study protocol without disclosure [or in predefined data‐analysis plan – also called ‘Significance chasing’, ‘P-hacking’, ‘data dredging’, ‘fishing expedition’ or explorative subgroup analyses]
- Report an incorrect downwardly rounded p‐value [e.g. by reporting a p value of .054 as being less than .05]
- Not report all study protocol‐stipulated results [in the aggregate of all published reports on the study at issue]
- Not publish a valid ‘negative’ study [in a form that is publicly available or accessible behind a paywall (article, report, website etc.)]
- Report an unexpected finding as having been hypothesized from the start
- Conceal results that contradict your earlier findings or convictions
- Not report clearly relevant details of study methods
- Not report replication problems
- Selectively cite to enhance your own findings or convictions
- Selectively cite to please editors, reviewers or colleagues
- Selectively cite or cite your own work to improve citation metrics [e.g. Impact Factor, H‐index]
- Let your convictions influence the conclusions substantially
- Insufficiently report study flaws and limitations
- Spread study results over more papers than needed [‘salami slicing’]
- Duplicate publication without disclosure
- Re‐use of previously published data without disclosure [which may lead to double counting in meta‐analyses]
- Modify the results or conclusions of a study due to pressure of a sponsor [commercial or not‐for‐profit funder of the study]
- Failure to disclose a sponsor of the study
- Failure to disclose a relevant financial or intellectual conflict of interest [in publications, when reviewing grant proposals, or evaluating persons or institutions]
- Handle existing conflicts of interest inadequately
- Communicate results to the general public before a peer reviewed publication is available
- Deliberately communicate findings inaccurately in the media or during presentations
- Make no clear distinction between personal views and professional comments (List from Bouter et al 2016[1])
- ↑ Bouter, L.M., Tijdink, J., Axelsen, N., Martinson, B.C. and Ter Riet, G., 2016. Ranking major and minor research misbehaviors: results from a survey among participants of four World Conferences on Research Integrity. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 1(1), p.17
For whom is this important?
Natalie Evans contributed to this theme. Latest contribution was Oct 28, 2020
