Management science on the credibility bubble: Cardinal sins and various misdemeanors

Academy of Management Learning and Education

Volumn 9, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 715-725

  Bedeian, Arthur ^a   Taylor, Shannon ^b   Miller, Alan ^c  

^a LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 78650916012     PISSN: 1537260X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5465/AMLE.2010.56659889     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. AACSB International. 2009. AQ/PQ status: Establishing criteria for attainment and maintenance of faculty qualifications-An interpretation of AACSB standards. Retrieved from
2. Academy of Management. 2005. Code of ethics. Retrieved from
3. Adler, N. J., & Harzing, A.-W. 2009. When knowledge wins: Transcending the sense and nonsense of academic rankings. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8: 72-95.
4. Allison, S. T., Messick, D. M., & Goethals, G. R. 1989. On being better but not smarter than others: The Muhammad Ali effect. Social Cognition, 7: 275-295.
5. American Psychological Association. 2010. Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
6. Americans skeptical of science behind global warming. 3 December 2009. Retrieved from
7. Anderson, M. S., Louis, K. S., & Earle, J. 1994. Disciplinary and department effects of observations of faculty and graduate student misconduct. Journal of Higher Education, 65: 331-350.
8. Biagioli, M. 2002. From book censorship to academic peer review. Emergences, 12: 11-45.
9. Bedeian, A. G. 1989. Totems and taboos: Undercurrents in the management discipline (Presidential address). Academy of Management Newsletter, 19(4): 1-6. Retrieved from
10. Bedeian, A. G. 2004. Peer review and the social construction of knowledge in the management discipline. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 3: 198-216.
11. Bentler, P. M. 2007. On tests and indices for evaluating structural models. Personality and Individual Differences, 42: 825-829.
12. Committee on Publication Ethics. 2008. A code of conduct: Flowcharts. Retrieved from
13. Cook, C., Heath, F., & Thompson, R. L. 2000. A meta-analysis of response rates in web- or Internet-based surveys. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 60: 821-836.
14. Council of Science Editors. 2009. White paper on promoting integrity in scientific journal publications, 2009 update. Retrieved from
15. Daft, R. L. 1983. Learning the craft of organizational research. Academy of Management Review, 8: 539-546.
16. Davis, M. S. 2003. The role of culture in research misconduct. Accountability in Research: Policies & Quality Assurance, 10: 189-201.
17. de Rond, M., & Miller, A. N. 2005. Publish or perish: Bane or boon of academic life? Journal of Management Inquiry, 14: 321-329.
18. Fanelli, D. 2009. How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS ONE, 4(5), e5738. Retrieved from http://www. plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal. pone.0005738#pone.0005738-List1
19. Fisher, R. J. 1993. Social desirability bias and the validity of indirect questioning. Journal of Consumer Research, 20: 303-315.
20. Fox, M. F. 1994. Scientific misconduct and editorial and peer review processes. Journal of Higher Education, 65: 298-309.
21. Gans, H. J. 1989. Sociology in America: The discipline and the public (1988 Presidential address to the American Sociological Association). American Sociological Review, 54: 1-16.
22. Garst, J., Kerr, N. L., Harris, S. E., & Sheppard, L. A. 2002. Satisficing in hypothesis generation. American Journal of Psychology, 115: 475-500.
23. Geelhoed, R. J., Phillips, J. C., Fischer, A. R., Shpungin, E., & Gong, Y. 2007. Authorship decision making: An empirical investigation. Ethics & Behavior, 17: 95-115.
24. Greenberg, M., & Goldberg, L. 1994. Ethical challenges to risk scientists: An exploratory analysis of survey data. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 19: 223-241.
25. Henninger, D. 3 December 2009. Climategate: Science is dying. Wall Street Journal, p. A21.
26. Kacmar, K. M. 2009. From the editors: An ethical quiz. Academy of Management Journal, 52: 432-434.
27. Kerr, N. L. 1998. HARKing: Hypothesizing after the results are known. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2: 196-217.
28. Kirby, K., & Houle, F. A. 2004. Ethics and the welfare of the physics profession. Physics Today, 57(11): 42-46.
29. Kish-Gephart, J. J., Harrison, D. A., & Treviño, L. K. 2010. Bad apples, bad cases, and bad barrels: Meta-analytic evidence about sources of unethical decisions at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95: 1-31.
30. Kock, N. 1999. A case of academic plagiarism. Communications of the ACM, 22: 96-104.
31. Long, R. G., Bowers, W. P., Barnett, T., & White, M. C. 1998. Research productivity of graduates in management: Effects of academic origin and academic affiliation. Academy of Management Journal, 41: 704-714.
32. Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S., & de Vries, R. 9 June 2005. Scientists behaving badly. Nature, 435: 737-738.
33. Merton, R. K. 1973. The normative structure of science. In N. Storer (Ed.), The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations: 267-278. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1942.)
34. Miller, D. 2007. Paradigm prison, or in praise of atheoretic research. Strategic Organization, 5: 177-184.
35. Mumford, M. D., Murphy, S. T., Connelly, S., Hill, J. H., Antes, A. L., Brown, R. P. et al. 2007. Environmental influences on ethical decision making: Climate and environmental predictors of research integrity. Ethics & Behavior, 17: 337-366.
36. Mumford, M. D., Waples, E. P., Antes, A. L., Murphy, S. T., Con- nelly, S., Brown, R. P. et al. 2009. Exposure to unethical career events: Effects on decision making, climate, and socialization. Ethics & Behavior, 19: 351-378.
37. National Academy of Sciences. Committee on the Conduct of Science. 1989. On being a scientist. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
38. National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. 1992. Responsible science: Vol. I: Ensuring the integrity of the research process. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Retrieved from
39. National Science and Technology Council. 2005. Federal policy on research misconduct. Retrieved from
40. Oliver, C. 2010. The goals of scholarship. Journal of Management Inquiry, 19: 26-32.
41. Resnik, D. B., Peddada, S., & Brunson, W., Jr. 2009. Research misconduct policies of scientific journals. Accountability in Research: Policies & Quality Assurance, 16: 254-267.
42. Rosenthal, R. 1979. The "file drawer problem" and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86: 638-641.
43. Schmidt, F. L. 1996. Statistical significance testing and cumulative knowledge in psychology: Implications for training researchers. Psychological Methods, 1: 115-129.
44. Schminke, M. 2009. Editor's comments: The better angels of our nature-ethics and integrity in the publishing process. Academy of Management Review, 34: 586-591.
45. Selvin, H. C., & Stuart, A. 1966. Data-dredging procedures in survey analysis. American Statistician, 20(3): 20-23.
46. Smyth, J. D., Dillman, D. A., Christian, L. M., & McBride, M. 2009. Open-ended questions in web surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 73: 325-337.
47. Sterba, S. K. 2006. Misconduct in the analysis and reporting of data: Bridging methodological and ethical agendas for change. Ethics & Behavior, 16: 305-318.
48. Stigler, S. M. 1987. Testing hypotheses or fitting models? Another look at mass extinctions. In M. H. Nitecki & A. Hoffman (Eds.), Neutral models in biology: 147-159. New York: Oxford University Press.
49. Swazey, J. P., Anderson, M. S., & Louis, K. S. 1993. Ethical problems in academic research. American Scientist, 81: 542-553.
50. Tourangeau, R., & Yan, T. 2007. Sensitive questions in surveys. Psychological Bulletin, 133: 859-883.
51. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Research Integrity. 2000. Federal Research Misconduct Policy. Retrieved from
52. Van Lange, P. A. M., & Sedikides, C. 1998. Being more honest but not necessarily more intelligent than others: Generality and explanations for the Muhammad Ali effect. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28: 675-680.
53. Von Glinow, M. A., & Novelli, L., Jr. 1982. Ethical standards within organizational behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 24: 417-436.
54. Weed, D. L. 1998. Preventing scientific misconduct. American Journal of Public Health, 88: 125-129.