Questionable Research Practices Revisited
By Klaus Fiedler, Norbert Schwarz. 2016
196 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Applied Psychology, Sociology and Political Science, Statistics and Probability
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c124b9d58c817e795fe33bcda6aff8065f6f0d02
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Applied Psychology
- Mark Rubin
- A. Strother
- Ronald S. Landis
- D. Rupp
- Frenk van Harreveld
- Steven J. Heine
- Robbie M. Sutton
- G. Banks
In Sociology and Political Science
- Mark Rubin
- A. Strother
- Ronald S. Landis
- D. Rupp
- Frenk van Harreveld
- Steven J. Heine
- Robbie M. Sutton
- G. Banks
In Statistics and Probability
- Anne M. Scheel
- Mark Rubin
- Mitchell Schijen
- A. Strother
- D. Rupp
- Steven J. Heine
- Robbie M. Sutton
- G. Banks
Citations in the corpus
- Psychological measurement and the replication crisis: Four sacred cows. (2020, result): “…attention has been accorded to p-hacking, file drawering of negative or inconclusive results, hypothesizing after results are known, and other questionable research practices (Fiedler & Schwarz, 2016; John, Loewenstein, & Prelec, 2012; Tackett & Miller, 2019) as sources of the replication crisis.”
- When Does HARKing Hurt? Identifying When Different Types of Undisclosed Post Hoc Hypothesizing Harm Scientific Progress (2017, background): “…Journal of Applied Psychology during 2005 to 2010 “Whether any changes in hypotheses had occurred between the completion of data collection and subsequent publication” 53 38% Fiedler and Schwarz (2016) German psychologists “Reporting an unexpected finding as having been predicted from the start.””
- An Excess of Positive Results: Comparing the Standard Psychology Literature With Registered Reports (2020, background): “…Foundation grant program that found a file-drawering effect for studies with negative results (Franco et al., 2014, 2016), and QRPs have been admitted by scientists in several survey studies (Agnoli et al., 2017; Fiedler & Schwarz, 2016; Fraser et al., 2018; John et al., 2012; Makel et al., 2021).”
- Editorial: Evidence on Questionable Research Practices: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly (2016, background): “• Fiedler and Schwarz (2015) criticized past research and suggested that engagement in QRPs may be lower than has been implied and reported elsewhere.”
- Attitudes Towards Science (2018, background): “…suggest that although a typically fewer than 2% of scientists admit blatant fraud, much larger numbers admit engaging in other questionable research practices that exaggerate the significance of their findings (Fanelli, 2009; Martinson, Anderson, & De Vries, 2005; but see Fiedler & Schwarz, 2016).”