Abstract
The reproducibility problem that exists in various academic fields has been discussed in recent years, and it has been revealed that scientists discreetly engage in several questionable research practices (QRPs). For example, the practice of hypothesizing after the results are known (HARKing) involves the reconstruction of hypotheses and stories after results have been obtained (Kerr, 1998) and thereby promotes the retrospective fabrication of favorable hypotheses (cf. Bem, 2004). P-hacking encompasses various untruthful manipulations for obtaining p-values less than 0.05 (Simmons et al., 2011). Such unethical practices dramatically increase the number of false positive findings and thereby encourage the intentional fabrication of evidence as the basis of scientific knowledge and theory, which leads to individual profits for researchers.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Article number | 1831 |
| Journal | Frontiers in Psychology |
| Volume | 9 |
| Issue number | SEP |
| DOIs |
|
| Publication status | Published - Sep 26 2018 |
Fingerprint
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Psychology(all)
Cite this
How to crack pre-registration : Toward transparent and open science. / Yamada, Yuki.
In: Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 9, No. SEP, 1831, 26.09.2018.Research output: Contribution to journal › Comment/debate
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - How to crack pre-registration
T2 - Toward transparent and open science
AU - Yamada, Yuki
PY - 2018/9/26
Y1 - 2018/9/26
N2 - The reproducibility problem that exists in various academic fields has been discussed in recent years, and it has been revealed that scientists discreetly engage in several questionable research practices (QRPs). For example, the practice of hypothesizing after the results are known (HARKing) involves the reconstruction of hypotheses and stories after results have been obtained (Kerr, 1998) and thereby promotes the retrospective fabrication of favorable hypotheses (cf. Bem, 2004). P-hacking encompasses various untruthful manipulations for obtaining p-values less than 0.05 (Simmons et al., 2011). Such unethical practices dramatically increase the number of false positive findings and thereby encourage the intentional fabrication of evidence as the basis of scientific knowledge and theory, which leads to individual profits for researchers.
AB - The reproducibility problem that exists in various academic fields has been discussed in recent years, and it has been revealed that scientists discreetly engage in several questionable research practices (QRPs). For example, the practice of hypothesizing after the results are known (HARKing) involves the reconstruction of hypotheses and stories after results have been obtained (Kerr, 1998) and thereby promotes the retrospective fabrication of favorable hypotheses (cf. Bem, 2004). P-hacking encompasses various untruthful manipulations for obtaining p-values less than 0.05 (Simmons et al., 2011). Such unethical practices dramatically increase the number of false positive findings and thereby encourage the intentional fabrication of evidence as the basis of scientific knowledge and theory, which leads to individual profits for researchers.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85053875155&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85053875155&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01831
DO - 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01831
M3 - Comment/debate
VL - 9
JO - Frontiers in Psychology
JF - Frontiers in Psychology
SN - 1664-1078
IS - SEP
M1 - 1831
ER -