How to crack pre-registration: Toward transparent and open science

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

1 Citation (Scopus)

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 languageEnglish
Article number1831
JournalFrontiers in Psychology
Volume9
Issue numberSEP
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Sep 26 2018

Fingerprint

Research Personnel
Research

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 journalComment/debate

@article{a865e98e523c4537be8558400789cafb,
title = "How to crack pre-registration: Toward transparent and open science",
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.",
author = "Yuki Yamada",
year = "2018",
month = "9",
day = "26",
doi = "10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01831",
language = "English",
volume = "9",
journal = "Frontiers in Psychology",
issn = "1664-1078",
publisher = "Frontiers Research Foundation",
number = "SEP",

}

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

AN - SCOPUS:85053875155

VL - 9

JO - Frontiers in Psychology

JF - Frontiers in Psychology

SN - 1664-1078

IS - SEP

M1 - 1831

ER -