https://embassy.science:443/wiki/Special:ExportRDF/Theme-3ACc742a7b-2D826d-2D4201-2Db33e-2D457f2ef79fb9
type: Ontology
creation date: 2026-08-15T14:36:54+02:00
imports: http://semantic-mediawiki.org/swivt/1.0

Hypothesizing after the results are known (HARKing)
type: Subject
type: Category:Theme
page: https://embassy.science:443/wiki/Theme-3ACc742a7b-2D826d-2D4201-2Db33e-2D457f2ef79fb9
wiki namespace: 7600
wiki page content language: en
display title: Hypothesizing after the results are known (HARKing)
has best practice: On the systemic level, HARKing can be prevented by changing researcher assessment and promoting the preregistration of studies, ideally in a form involving reviewed preregistration with guaranteed publication if the accepted protocol is followed. Individual researchers should make post hoc hypotheses transparent and thereby avoid deceiving readers to reap the benefits from exploratory studies without misrepresenting them as following a hypothetico-deductive model.
has detail: The term HARKing was coined in a seminal article by Kerr[1] and is usually used synonymously with accommodational hypothesizing[2] and presenting post hoc hypothesis as a priori (PPHA).[3] Kerr identified twelve potential costs of HARKing: 1. Translating Type I errors into hard-to-eradicate theory. 2. Propounding theories that cannot (pending replication) pass Popper’s disconfirmability test. 3. Disguising post hoc explanations as a priori explanations (when the former ted also be more ad hoc, and consequently, less useful). 4. Not communicating valuable information about what did not work. 5. Taking unjustified statistical licence. 6. Presenting an inaccurate model of science to students. 7. Encouraging “fudging” in other grey areas. 8. Making us less receptive to serendipitous findings. 9. Encouraging adoption of narrow, context-bound new theory. 10. Encouraging retention of too-broad, disconfirmable old theory. 11. Inhibiting identification of plausible alternative hypotheses. 12. Implicitly violating basic ethical principles. While Kerr’s article initially was not widely cited, this changed in the wake of the replication crisis and empirical studies into the prevalence and drivers of detrimental research practices and research misconduct. The surge of interest in HARKing worryingly showed that it indeed is a rather prevalent practice. Various studies on the prevalence of detrimental research practices found that a sizeable proportion of researchers (up to 58% in one study) from different disciplines (most notably psychology) did engage in HARKing in the past.[4] To identify measures to reduce HARKing, it is necessary to understand its causes. A key driving factor of HARKing most likely is publication bias: it is much more difficult to publish negative findings than positive findings, and confirmatory research seemingly following a hypothetico-deductive model is generally higher valued than exploratory research, at least in most fields of research. The number of …
has good practice and misconduct: Engaging in methodologically questionable research practices
has good practice and misconduct: Bias
has good practice and misconduct: HARKing
has good practice and misconduct: Misrepresentation of results
has good practice and misconduct: Pre-registrations
has good practice and misconduct: Publication ethics
has good practice and misconduct: Questionable research practices
has good practice and misconduct: Reproducibility
has good practice and misconduct: Reporting
has good practice and misconduct: Open science
has virtue and value: Reproducibility
has virtue and value: Transparency
has virtue and value: Honesty
has virtue and value: Sincerity
important because: In recent years, several academic disciplines – perhaps most strongly psychology – have witnessed a replication crisis, casting doubt on the validity of seemingly well-established findings and theories. The prevalence of HARKing, evidenced by empirical studies of research misconduct and research misbehavior, is considered one of several driving factors behind the replication crisis. This is due to two reasons: Firstly, data that were used to generate a hypothesis cannot be used to test that same hypothesis in any meaningful way. Portraying an empirically inspired post hoc hypothesis as a priori violates the falsification principle crucial for hypothesis-driven (that is, confirmatory) empirical research. Secondly, suppressing unsupported a priori hypotheses and the attendant failure to report null effects throws away opportunities to cast doubt on the validity of hypotheses derived from extant knowledge. Consequently, multiple disconfirmations of a hypothesis may go unnoticed when researchers HARK because disconfirmations are not reported. While pure HARKing is unquestionably a detrimental research practice, the same is not necessarily true for transparent forms of HARKing. Transparent HARKing (THARKing) occurs when researchers develop post hoc hypotheses (that is, hypothesize after the results are known), but do so transparently and based on theory. If done transparently and inspired not only by results but also by theory, post hoc hypothesizing does not misportray the research process because exploratory findings are clearly labeled as such.
important for: Researcher
important for: Peer Reviewer
important for: Research Integrity Officer / Committee Member
important for: Journal Editor
is about: Hypothesizing after the results are known ('''HARKing''') refers to the practice of presenting unexpected findings as a priori hypotheses or failing to report empirically unsupported hypotheses that were derived a priori and guided the research. In other words, research reports suffer from HARKing if they include one or more post hoc hypotheses (that is, hypotheses developed after the results of the data analysis are known) that are misrepresented as a priori (that is, as developed prior to the data analysis) or if they exclude one or more a priori hypotheses that were empirically disconfirmed. Consequently, HARKed reports misrepresent the ratio of empirically confirmed and disconfirmed a priori hypotheses by elevating exploratory findings to a priori expectations and suppressing a priori expectations unsupported by the data at hand. Thus, HARKing misportrays the research process by falsely describing hypothesis generating exploratory research as hypothesis testing confirmatory research or by failing to report hypotheses that could not be corroborated and therefore deceives readers. This theme page describes the practice of HARKing and its detrimental consequences on research in some more depth, briefly explains how initiatives such as preregistration aim to reduce HARKing and differentiates pure HARKing from transparent forms of HARKing that are not necessarily detrimental to the research endeavor.
main category: Category:Theme
theme type: Misconduct & Misbehaviors
title: Hypothesizing after the results are known (HARKing)
wiki page creation date: 2021-10-11T13:02:48Z
creation date#aux: 2459499.0436111
display title of: Hypothesizing after the results are known (HARKing)
last editor is: User:0000-0003-4024-8548
wiki page modification date: 2026-06-02T15:54:26Z
modification date#aux: 2461194.1628009
is a new page: false
wiki page sort key: [[:Property:Display Title|Display Title]]: [[:Questionable Research Practices in Analysis and Reporting|Questionable Research Practices in Analysis and Reporting]]Hypothesizing after the results are known (HARKing)
page creator: User:0000-0002-9460-0896
page author: User:0000-0001-7124-9282
page author: User:0000-0003-4024-8548
page author: User:0000-0003-3048-2023
page author: User:0000-0002-9460-0896

http://https://embassy.science:443/wiki/Special:URIResolver/Theme-3ACc742a7b-2D826d-2D4201-2Db33e-2D457f2ef79fb9-23_QUERYc318142dd5627fc2efddade4a87bc03f
type: Subject
master page: Hypothesizing after the results are known (HARKing)
wiki namespace: 7600
query depth: 0
query format: plainlist
query size: 1
query string: [[:Theme:Cc742a7b-826d-4201-b33e-457f2ef79fb9]]
wiki page sort key: [[:Property:Display Title|Display Title]]: [[:Questionable Research Practices in Analysis and Reporting|Questionable Research Practices in Analysis and Reporting]]Hypothesizing after the results are known (HARKing)# QUERYc318142dd5627fc2efddade4a87bc03f

http://https://embassy.science:443/wiki/Special:URIResolver/Theme-3ACc742a7b-2D826d-2D4201-2Db33e-2D457f2ef79fb9-23_QUERY69987df5338a1b0b20d9ca32eac85d9c
type: Subject
master page: Hypothesizing after the results are known (HARKing)
wiki namespace: 7600
query depth: 0
query format: plainlist
query size: 1
query string: [[:Theme:48185295-9e1e-41fb-ab70-948596e588d5]]
wiki page sort key: [[:Property:Display Title|Display Title]]: [[:Questionable Research Practices in Analysis and Reporting|Questionable Research Practices in Analysis and Reporting]]Hypothesizing after the results are known (HARKing)# QUERY69987df5338a1b0b20d9ca32eac85d9c

http://https://embassy.science:443/wiki/Special:URIResolver/Theme-3ACc742a7b-2D826d-2D4201-2Db33e-2D457f2ef79fb9-23_QUERY8146f1eaf3a751c57497fd9b48e6249a
type: Subject
master page: Hypothesizing after the results are known (HARKing)
wiki namespace: 7600
query depth: 2
query format: plainlist
query size: 3
query string: [[:Theme:Cc742a7b-826d-4201-b33e-457f2ef79fb9]] [[Page author.Full Name::+]]
wiki page sort key: [[:Property:Display Title|Display Title]]: [[:Questionable Research Practices in Analysis and Reporting|Questionable Research Practices in Analysis and Reporting]]Hypothesizing after the results are known (HARKing)# QUERY8146f1eaf3a751c57497fd9b48e6249a