We use cookies to analyze our traffic. Please decide if you are willing to accept cookies from our website. You can change this setting anytime in Privacy Settings.

Questionable research practices (QRP) are believed to be widespread, but empirical assessments are generally restricted to a few types of practices. Furthermore, conceptual confusion is rife with use and prevalence of QRPs often being confused as the same quantity. We present the hitherto most comprehensive study examining QRPs across scholarly fields and knowledge production modes. We survey perception, use, prevalence and predictors of QRPs among 3,402 researchers in Denmark and 1,307 in the UK, USA, Croatia and Austria. Results reveal remarkably similar response patterns among Danish and international respondents (τ = 0.85). Self-reported use indicates whether respondents have used a QRP in recent publications. 9 out of 10 respondents admitted using at least one QRP. Median use is three out of nine QRP items. Self-reported prevalence reflects the frequency of use. On average, prevalence rates were roughly three times lower compared to self-reported use. Findings indicated that the perceived social acceptability of QRPs influenced self-report patterns. Results suggest that most researchers use different types of QRPs within a restricted time period. The prevalence estimates, however, do not suggest outright systematic use of specific QRPs. Perceived pressure was the strongest systemic predictor for prevalence. Conversely, more local attention to research cultures and academic age was negatively related to prevalence. Finally, the personality traits conscientiousness and, to a lesser degree, agreeableness were also inversely associated with self-reported prevalence. Findings suggest that explanations for engagement with QRPs are not only attributable to systemic factors, as hitherto suggested, but a complicated mixture of experience, systemic and individual factors, and motivated reasoning.

Call for Papers zum Symposium "Zettelkataloge. Unantastbares Kulturgut, aktiver Forschungsgegenstand oder substituierbares historisches Arbeitsmittel?"

Chérifa Boukacem-Zeghmouri (Département Informatique, Université Lyon, France) & Jie Xu (School of Information Management, Wuhan University, China)

Chérifa Boukacem-Zeghmouri (Département Informatique, Université Lyon, France) & Jie Xu (School of Information Management, Wuhan University, China)

Purpose. Scholarly blogs serve as a medium for sharing scholarly output both inside and outside of academia. However, questions arise concerning the assurance of the long-term accessibility of scholar...

Alex Csiszar (Department of the History of Science, Harvard University, USA)