Early-Career Researchers’ Perceptions of the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices, Potential Causes, and Open Science

Social Psychology

Volumn 48, Issue 6, 2017, Pages 365-371

  Stürmer, Stefan ^d   Oeberst, Aileen ^a   Trötschel, Roman ^b   Decker, Oliver ^c  

^a JOHANNES GUTENBERG UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^b LEUPHANA UNIVERSITY OF LÜNEBURG   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY OF LEIPZIG   (Germany)

^d UNIVERSITY OF HAGEN   (Germany)

Author keywords

Early career researcher; Open science; Research practices

Indexed keywords

ADULT; CAREER; EXPLORATORY RESEARCH; FEMALE; FRAUD; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PERCEPTION; PREVALENCE; SCIENTIST;

EID: 85037127699     PISSN: 18649335     EISSN: 21512590     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1027/1864-9335/a000324     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Alberts, B., Kirschner, M. W., Tilghman, S., & Varmus, H. (2014). Rescuing US biomedical research from its systemic flaws. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States, 111, 5773–5777. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas. 1404402111
2. Bakker, M., Van Dijk, A., & Wicherts, J. M. (2012). The rules of the game called psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 543–554. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1745691612459060
3. Buchholz, K., Gülker, S., Knie, A., & Simon, D. (2009). Attraktivität von Arbeitsbedingungen in der Wissenschaft im internationalen Vergleich [Attractiveness of working conditions in science in international comparison]. Berlin, Germany: Wissenschaftszen-trum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB).
4. Callaway, E. (2011). Report finds massive fraud at Dutch universities. Nature, 479, 15. https://doi.org/10.1038/479015a
5. Doyen, S., Klein, O., Pichon, C.-L., & Cleeremans, A. (2012). Behavioral priming: It’s all in the mind, but whose mind? PLoS One, 7, e29081. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0029081
6. Epstude, K. (2017). Towards a replicable and relevant social psychology. Social Psychology, 48, 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000303
7. Everett, J. A. C., & Earp, B. D. (2015). A tragedy of the (academic) commons: Interpreting the replication crisis in psychology as a social dilemma for early-career researchers. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01152
8. Ferguson, C. J. (2015). “Everybody knows psychology is not a real science”: Public perceptions of psychology and how we can improve our relationship with policymakers, the scientific community, and the general public. The American Psychologist, 70, 527–542. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039405
9. Fiedler, K., & Schwarz, N. (2016). Questionable research practices revisited. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7, 45–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550615612150
10. Garrison, K. E., Tang, D., & Schmeichel, B. J. (2016). Embodying power: A preregistered replication and extension of the power pose effect. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7, 623–630. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550616652209
11. Hagger, M. S., Chatzisarantis, N. D., Alberts, H., Anggono, C. O., Batailler, C., Birt, A. R., . . . Zwienenberg, M., (2016). A multilab preregistered replication of the ego-depletion effect. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11, 546–573. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616652873
12. Ioannidis, J. P. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine, 2, e124. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
13. John, L. K., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2012). Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth-telling. Psychological Science, 23, 524–532. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0956797611430953
14. LeBel, E. P., Borsboom, D., Giner-Sorolla, R., Hasselman, F., Peters, K. R., Ratliff, K. A., & Tucker, M. C. (2013). PsychDis-closure.org: Grassroots support for reforming standards in psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8, 424–432. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691613491437
15. Miller, D. T., & Prentice, D. A. (1994). Collective errors and errors about the collective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 475–484. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167294205011
16. Moscovici, S. (1984). The phenomenon of social representations. In R. Farr & S. Moscovici (Eds.), Social representations (pp. 3–69). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
17. Nosek, B. A., Alter, G., Banks, G. C., Borsboom, D., Bowman, S. D., Breckler, S. J., & Yarkoni, T. (2015). Promoting an open research culture. Science, 348, 1422–5. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aab2374
18. Nosek, B. A., & Lakens, D. (2014). Registered Reports: A method to increase the credibility of published results. Social Psychology, 45, 137–141. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000192
19. Nosek, B. A., Spies, J. R., & Motyl, M. (2012). Scientific utopia: II. Restructuring incentives and practices to promote truth over publishability. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 615–631. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612459058
20. Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349, aac4716.
21. Pashler, H., Coburn, N., & Harris, C. R. (2012). Priming of social distance? Failure to replicate effects on social and food judgments. PLoS One, 7, e42510. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0042510
22. Pashler, H., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2012). Editors’ introduction to the special section on replicability in psychological science: A crisis of confidence? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 528–530. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612465253
23. Rentzsch, K., Harzer, C., & Wolter, I. (2017). Stellungnahme zur Lage des wissenschaftlichen Nachwuchses in der Psychologie [Statement on the current situation of early-career researchers in psychology]. Psychologische Rundschau, 68, 251–263. https://doi.org/10.1026/0033-3042/a000377
24. Shanks, D. R., Newell, B. R., Lee, E. H., Balakrishnan, D., Ekelund, L., Cenac, Z., . . . Moore, C. (2013). Priming intelligent behavior: An elusive phenomenon. PLoS One, 8, e56515. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0056515
25. Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22, 1359–1366. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611417632
26. Stephan, P. E. (2012). How economics shapes science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
27. Stürmer, S., Oeberst, A., Trötschel, R., & Decker, O. (in press). Kommentar zur, „Stellungnahme zur Lage des wissenschaftlichen Nachwuchses in der Psychologie“von Rentsch et al. [Comment on “Statement on the current situation of early-career researchers in psychology” by Rentsch et al.]. Psychologische Rundschau, 68, 270–272. https://doi.org/10.1026/0033–3042/a000377
28. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 07–24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.
29. Thomas, W. I., & Thomas, D. S. (1928). The child in America: Behavior problems and programs. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
30. Unkelbach, C. (2016). Increasing replicability. Social Psychology, 47, 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000270
31. Wagenmakers, E.-J., Wetzels, R., Borsboom, D., & van der Maas, H. L. J. (2011). Why psychologists must change the way they analyze their data: The case of psi: Comment on Bem (2011). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 426–432. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022790
32. Yong, E. (2012). Replication studies: Bad copy. Nature, 485, 298–300. https://doi.org/10.1038/485298a