The gray zone: Questionable research practices in the business school

Academy of Management Learning and Education

Volumn 16, Issue 1, 2017, Pages 94-109

  Butler, Nick ^a   Delaney, Helen ^b   Spoelstra, Sverre ^c  

^a STOCKHOLM UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND   (New Zealand)

^c LUND UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85018527873     PISSN: 1537260X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5465/amle.2015.0201     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. Academy of Management. 2006. Code of ethics. Retrieved from: Http://aom.org/uploadedFiles/About-AOM/Governance/AOM- Code-of-Ethics.pdf.
2. Alvesson, M., & Sköldberg, K. 2009. Reflexive methodology: New vistas for qualitative research. London: Sage.
3. Anonymous 2015. The case of the hypothesis that never was: Uncovering the deceptive use of post hoc hypotheses. Journal of Management Inquiry, 24(2): 214-216.
4. Atwater, L. E., Mumford, M. D., Schriesheim, C. A., & Yammarino, F. J. 2014. Retraction of leadership articles: Causes and prevention. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(5): 1174-1180.
5. Bedeian, A. G. 2003. The manuscript review process: The proper roles of authors, referees, and editors. Journal of Management Inquiry, 12(4): 331-338.
6. Bedeian, A. G., Taylor, S. G., & Miller, A. N. 2010. Management science on the credibility bubble: Cardinal sins and various misdemeanors. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9(4): 715-725.
7. Bhattacharjee, Y. 2013, April 26. The mind of a con man. The New York Times. Retrieved from: Http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/magazine/diederik-stapels-audacious-academic-fraud. html?pagewanted5all.
8. Budd, J. 2013. The Stapel case: An object lesson in research integrity and its lapses. Synesis: A Journal of Science Technology, Ethics, and Policy, 4: 47-53.
9. Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. 1979. Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis: Elements of the sociology of corporate life. London: Heinemann.
10. Butler, N., Delaney, H., & Spoelstra, S. 2015. Problematizing 'relevance' in the business school: The case of leadership studies. British Journal of Management, 26(4): 731-744.
11. Butler, N., & Spoelstra, S. 2012. Your excellency. Organization, 19(6): 891-903.
12. Butler, N., & Spoelstra, S. 2014. The regime of excellence and the erosion of ethos in critical management studies. British Journal of Management, 25(3): 538-550.
13. Butler, N., & Spoelstra, S. 2015. The dark arts of academia-and why journals must do more to tackle the problem. The Conversation, January 7. Retrieved from: Https://theconversation. com/the-dark-arts-of-academia-and-why-journals-must-domore- to-tackle-the-problem-35796.
14. Carey, B. 2015, May 28. Study on attitudes towards same-sex marriage is retracted by a scientific journal. The New York Times. Retrieved from: Http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/29/science/journal-science-retracts-study-on-gay-canvassersand- same-sex-marriage.html.
15. Chen, X.-P. 2011. Author ethical dilemmas in the research publication process. Management and Organization Review, 7(3): 423-432.
16. Ciulla, J. B. 1995. Leadership ethics: Mapping the territory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 5(1): 5-28.
17. Chubin, D. E. 1985. Misconduct in research: An issue of science policy and practice. Minerva, 23(2): 175-202.
18. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. 2008. Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory, (3rd ed.). London: Sage.
19. Davis, G. F. 2014. Editorial essay: Why do we still have journals? Administrative Science Quarterly, 59(2): 193-201.
20. De Vries, R., Anderson, M. S., & Martinson, B. C. 2006. Normal misbehavior: Scientists talk about the ethics of research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics; JERHRE, 1(1): 43-50.
21. Fanelli, D. 2009. How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS One, 4(5): E5738.
22. Fanelli, D. 2012. The good, the bad and the grey areas: Towards an international and interdisciplinary definition of scientific misconduct. In T. Mayer & T & N. Steneck (Eds.), Promoting research integrity in a global environment: 79-90. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing.
23. Fanelli, D. 2013a. Why growing retractions are (mostly) a good sign. PLoS Medicine, 10(12): 1-6.
24. Fanelli, D. 2013b. Redefine misconduct as distorted reporting. Nature, 494: 149.
25. Fang, F. C., Steen, R. G., & Casadevall, A. 2013. Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(42): 17028-17033.
26. Fiedler, K., & Schwarz, N. 2015. Questionable research practices revisited. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 45-52.
27. Gambino, L., & Devlin, H. 2015. Study of attitudes to same-sex marriage retracted over 'Fake Data'. The Guardian, May 20. Retrieved from: Http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/20/same-sex-marriage-attitudes-study-retracted-fakedata.
28. Harley, B., Faems, D., & Corbett, A. 2014. A few bad apples or the tip of an iceberg? Academic misconduct in publishing. Journal of Management Studies, 51(8): 1361-1363.
29. Harvie, D., Lightfoot, G., Lilley, S., &Weir, K. 2012. What are we to do with feral publishers? Organization, 19(6): 905-914.
30. Harvie, D., Lightfoot, G., Lilley, S., & Weir, K. 2013. Publisher, be damned! From price gouging to the open road. Prometheus, 31(3): 229-239.
31. Honig, B., & Bedi, A. 2012. The fox in the hen house: A critical examination of plagiarism among members of the Academy of Management. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(1): 101-123.
32. John, L. K., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. 2012. Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practiceswith incentives for truth telling. Psychological Science, 23(5): 524-532.
33. Kepes, S., & McDaniel, M. A. 2013. How trustworthy is the scientific literature in industrial and organizational psychology? Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 6(3): 252-268.
34. Kerr, N. L. 1998. HARKing: Hypothesizing after the results are known. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(3): 196-217.
35. Kornfeld, D. S. 2012. Research misconduct: The search for a remedy. Academic Medicine, 87(8): 877-882.
36. Lenz, H. 2014. Scientific ethics and publishing conduct. Journal of Business Economics, 84(9): 1167-1189.
37. List, J. A., Bailey, C. D., Euzent, P. J., & Martin, T. L. 2001. Academic economics behaving badly? A survey on three areas of unethical behaviour. Economic Inquiry, 39(1): 162-170.
38. Lynöe, N., Jacobsson, L., & Lundgren, E. 1999. Fraud,misconduct or normal science in medical research-An empirical study of demarcation. Journal of Medical Ethics, 25(6): 501-506.
39. Macdonald, S. 2015. Emperor's new clothes: The reinvention of peer review as myth. Journal of Management Inquiry, 24(3): 264-279.
40. Marcus, A., & Oransky, I. 2012. Bring on the Transparency Index. Scientist (Philadelphia, PA), 1 (August). Retrieved from:http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/32427/title/Bring-On-the-Transparency-Index.
41. Marcus, A., & Oransky, I. 2015, May 22. What's behind big science frauds? The New York Times. Retrieved from: Http://www. nytimes.com/2015/05/23/opinion/whats-behind-big-sciencefrauds. html.
42. Martin, B. R. 2013. Whither research integrity? Plagiarism, selfplagiarism and coercive citation in an age of research assessment. Research Policy, 42(5): 1005-1014.
43. Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S., & de Vries, R. 2005. Scientists behaving badly. Nature, 435: 737-738.
44. McNutt, M. 2015. Editorial expression of concern. Science, 348: 1100.
45. Necker, S. 2014. Scientific misbehavior in economics. Research Policy, 43(10): 1747-1759.
46. New York Times Editorial. 2015, June 1. Scientists who cheat. The New York Times. Retrieved from: Http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/01/opinion/scientists-who-cheat.html.
47. Panel on Scientific Responsibility and the Conduct of Research. 1992. Responsible science: Ensuring the integrity of the research process, Vol. I, Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
48. Prasad, P. 2005. Crafting qualitative research: Working in the postpositivist traditions. NY: M.E. Sharpe.
49. O'Boyle, E. H., Banks, G. C., & Gonzalez-Mulé, E. 2017. The chrysalis effect: How ugly initial results metamorphosize into beautiful articles. Journal of Management, 43(2): 376-399.
50. Office of Science and Technology Policy. 2000. Federal research misconduct policy. Federal Register, 65(235): 76260-76264.
51. Pfeffer, J. 1977. The ambiguity of leadership. Academy of Management Review, 2(1): 104-112.
52. Putnam, H. 2002. The collapse of the fact/value dichotomy and other essays. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
53. Resnik, D. B. 2003. From Baltimore to Bell Labs: Reflections on two decades of debate about scientific misconduct. Accountability in Research, 10(2): 123-135.
54. Resnik, D. B., Neal, T., Raymond, A., & Kissling, G. E. 2015. Research misconduct definitions adopted by U.S. research institutions. Accountability in Research, 22(1): 14-21.
55. Retraction Watch. 2014a, February 7. Leadership journal to retract five papers from FIU scholar. Retraction Watch. Retrieved from: Http://retractionwatch.com/2014/02/07/leadership-journalto- retract-five-papers-from-fiu-scholar.
56. Retraction Watch. 2014b, June 16. Ulrich Lichtenthaler retraction count rises to 16. Retraction Watch. Retrieved from: Http://retractionwatch.com/2014/06/16/ulrich-lichtenthaler-retractioncount- rises-to-16.
57. Retraction Watch. 2015, December 8. Diederik Stapel now has 58 retractions. Retraction Watch. Retrieved from: Http://retractionwatch.com/2015/12/08/diederik-stapel-now-has-58- retractions.
58. Schekman, R. 2013, December 9. How journals like Nature, Cell and Science are damaging science. The Guardian. Retrieved from: Http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/09/how-journals-nature-science-cell-damage-science.
59. Schminke, M. 2009. Editor's comments: The better angels of our nature-Ethics and integrity in the publishing process. Academy of Management Review, 34(4): 586-591.
60. Sovacool, B. K. 2008. Exploring scientific misconduct: Isolated individuals, impure institutions, or an inevitable idiom of modern science? Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 5(4): 271-282.
61. Steneck, N. 2006. Fostering integrity in research: Definition, current knowledge, and future directions. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12(1): 53-74.
62. Stroebe, W., Postmes, T., & Spears, R. 2012. Scientific misconduct and the myth of self-correction in science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6): 670-688.
63. Van Noorden, R. 2011. The trouble with retractions. Nature, 478: 26-28.
64. Wenger, N. S., Korenman, S. G., Berk, R., & Berry, S. 1997. The ethics of scientific research: An analysis of focus groups of scientists and institutional representatives. Journal of Investigative Medicine, 45(6): 371-380.