Editorial: Evidence on Questionable Research Practices: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

By G. Banks, Steven Rogelberg, Haley M. Woznyj, Ronald S. Landis, D. Rupp. 2016

126 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Information Systems and Management, Safety Research, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/5e77af81bbd62c0b0943f54d581773ffcfc56cbd

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Information Systems and Management

1. Jeffrey Heer
2. Madian Khabsa
3. Victoria Stodden
4. John Antonakis
5. Herman Aguinis
6. Toshio Murase
7. Ante Glavas
8. Marc Orlitzky

In Safety Research

1. Kevin J. Murphy
2. Jeffrey Heer
3. Tal Yarkoni
4. Lily Jiang
5. A. Coppock
6. Timo Gnambs
7. John Antonakis
8. John Protzko

In Statistics and Probability

1. Kevin J. Murphy
2. Ulf K. Mertens
3. Dale J. Barr
4. J. Jong
5. Travis A. Riddle
6. David I Miller
7. Tim Althoff
8. Jeffrey Heer

Citations in the corpus

• Same data, different conclusions: Radical dispersion in empirical results when independent analysts operationalize and test the same hypothesis (2021, background): “The latter two threats to validity can be addressed by pre-registering the analytic strategy (Aguinis, Banks, Rogelberg, Cascio, in press; Banks et al., 2016, 2019; Van ’t Veer & Giner-Sorolla, 2016; Wagenmakers, Wetzels, Borsboom, van der Maas, & Kievit, 2012), or conducting a blinded analysis in…”
• On doing better science: From thrill of discovery to policy implications (2017, background): “More research is required to better understand whether there is a problem in our field with respect to authorship misuse (Banks et al., 2016).”
• HARKing: How Badly Can Cherry-Picking and Question Trolling Produce Bias in Published Results? (2019, background): “…of HARKing in management, applied psychology, and related fields (Aguinis, Cascio, & Ramani, 2017; Aguinis, Ramani, & Alabduljader, in press; Banks et al., 2016a; Banks, Rogelberg, Woznyj, Landis, & Rupp, 2016b; Bedeian, Taylor, & Miller, 2010; Bettis, Ethiraj, Gambardella, Helfat, &…”
• Answers to 18 Questions About Open Science Practices (2018, unknown): “Whereas previous reviews (e.g., Banks et al., 2016; Grand et al., in press; Kepes & McDaniel, 2013) have focused on closely related topics like questionable research practices and publication bias, a standalone treatment of open science practices is lacking, which may explain why so many questions…”