HARKing's Threat to Organizational Research: Evidence From Primary and Meta‐Analytic Sources

By Frank Bosco, Herman Aguinis, James G. Field, C. Pierce, D. Dalton. 2016

104 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Information Systems and Management, Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management, Radiological and Ultrasound Technology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/6a43e8b8ccdcb1176379de6914b064b8d8349d21

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

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

In Radiological and Ultrasound Technology

Citations in the corpus

Is there a credibility crisis in strategic management research? Evidence on the reproducibility of study findings (2017, background): “Discussion A high profile debate on the replicability of study findings is emerging across multiple disciplines (e.g. Baker, 2012; Bissell, 2013; Bosco et al., 2016; Carpenter, 2012) raising concerns about”
Harking, Sharking, and Tharking (2017, background): “…is framed as an a priori hypothesis, the correlation is roughly .06 points higher relative to when the exact same relationship is just reported as an indirect by-product of some study where that relationship was not the a priori hypothesis (i.e., indirect replications; see Bosco et al., 2015).”
When Does HARKing Hurt? Identifying When Different Types of Undisclosed Post Hoc Hypothesizing Harm Scientific Progress (2017, background): “When associated results are also suppressed, SHARKing can bias information about the size and replicability of effects in meta-analyses (Bosco et al., 2016; Schwab & Starbuck, 2017).”
Editorial: Evidence on Questionable Research Practices: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly (2016, background): “Some QRPs, such as presenting a post hoc hypothesis as a priori, likely occur at more alarming rates (Banks et al. 2016; Bosco et al. 2015; John et al. 2012; Kerr and Harris 1998).”
Advancing Theory by Assessing Boundary Conditions With Metaregression: A Critical Review and Best-Practice Recommendations (2018, background): “For example, Bosco et al. (2016) surveyed authors of 62 studies published in Journal of Applied Psychology and Personnel Psychology between 2005 and 2010 and found that 21% of respondents indicated that they had changed at least one hypothesis as a result of requests from the editor or reviewers.”
Answers to 18 Questions About Open Science Practices (2018, unknown): “…(Baker, 2016), the open science movement and its associated practices are being discussed fervently within scholarly circles (Antonakis, 2017; Bosco, Aguinis, Field, Pierce, & Dalton, 2016; Grand, Rogelberg, Banks, Landis, & Tonidandel, in press; Hollenbeck & Wright, 2017; Ioannidis, 2005;…”
HARKing: How Badly Can Cherry-Picking and Question Trolling Produce Bias in Published Results? (2019, background): “Prevalence of HARKingAs noted earlier, estimates of the prevalence of HARKing behaviors in the published literature have typically ranged from 30 to 70%, depending on the particular situations and the particular definitions of HARKing used (Bosco et al., 2016; Fanelli, 2009; John et al., 2012; O’Boy”