dc.contributor.author
Nagy, Tamás
dc.contributor.author
Hergert, Jane
dc.contributor.author
Elsherif, Mahmoud M.
dc.contributor.author
Wallrich, Lukas
dc.contributor.author
Schmidt, Kathleen
dc.contributor.author
Waltzer, Tal
dc.contributor.author
Payne, Jason W.
dc.contributor.author
Gjoneska, Biljana
dc.contributor.author
Seetahul, Yashvin
dc.contributor.author
Wang, Y. Andre
dc.contributor.author
Scharfenberg, Daniel
dc.contributor.author
Tyson, Gabriella
dc.contributor.author
Yang, Yu-Fang
dc.contributor.author
Skvortsova, Aleksandrina
dc.contributor.author
Alarie, Samuel
dc.contributor.author
Graves, Katherine
dc.contributor.author
Sotola, Lukas K.
dc.contributor.author
Moreau, David
dc.contributor.author
Rubínová, Eva
dc.date.accessioned
2025-07-29T08:01:48Z
dc.date.available
2025-07-29T08:01:48Z
dc.identifier.uri
https://refubium.fu-berlin.de/handle/fub188/48463
dc.identifier.uri
http://dx.doi.org/10.17169/refubium-48185
dc.description.abstract
Questionable research practices (QRPs) pose a significant threat to the quality of scientific research. However, historically, they remain ill-defined, and a comprehensive list of QRPs is lacking. In this article, we address this concern by defining, collecting, and categorizing QRPs using a community-consensus method. Collaborators of the study agreed on the following definition: QRPs are ways of producing, maintaining, sharing, analyzing, or interpreting data that are likely to produce misleading conclusions, typically in the interest of the researcher. QRPs are not normally considered to include research practices that are prohibited or proscribed in the researcher’s field (e.g., fraud, research misconduct). Neither do they include random researcher error (e.g., accidental data loss). Drawing from both iterative discussions and existing literature, we collected, defined, and categorized 40 QRPs for quantitative research. We also considered attributes such as potential harms, detectability, clues, and preventive measures for each QRP. The results suggest that QRPs are pervasive and versatile and have the potential to undermine all stages of the scientific enterprise. This work contributes to the maintenance of research integrity, transparency, and reliability by raising awareness for and improving the understanding of QRPs in quantitative psychological research.
en
dc.format.extent
36 Seiten
dc.rights
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
dc.rights.uri
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
dc.subject
credibility crisis
en
dc.subject
expert consensus
en
dc.subject
open science
en
dc.subject
research integrity
en
dc.subject
research methods
en
dc.subject.ddc
100 Philosophie und Psychologie::150 Psychologie::150 Psychologie
dc.title
Bestiary of Questionable Research Practices in Psychology
dc.type
Wissenschaftlicher Artikel
dc.date.updated
2025-07-19T14:27:42Z
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.doi
10.1177/25152459251348431
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.journaltitle
Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.number
3
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.volume
8
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.url
https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459251348431
refubium.affiliation
Erziehungswissenschaft und Psychologie
refubium.affiliation.other
Arbeitsbereich Allgemeine Psychologie und Neuropsychologie

refubium.resourceType.isindependentpub
no
dcterms.accessRights.openaire
open access
dcterms.isPartOf.eissn
2515-2467
refubium.resourceType.provider
DeepGreen