IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v49y2020i4s004873332030010x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using retracted journal articles in psychology to understand research misconduct in the social sciences: What is to be done?

Author

Listed:
  • Craig, Russell
  • Cox, Adam
  • Tourish, Dennis
  • Thorpe, Alistair

Abstract

This paper explores the nature and impact of research misconduct in psychology by analyzing 160 articles that were retracted from prominent scholarly journals between 1998 and 2017. We compare findings with recent studies of retracted papers in economics, and business and management, to profile practices that are likely to be problematic in cognate social science disciplines. In psychology, the principal reason for retraction was data fabrication. Retractions took longer to make, and generally were from higher ranked and more prestigious journals, than in the two cognate disciplines. We recommend that journal editors should be more forthcoming in the reasons they provide for article retractions. We also recommend that the discipline of psychology gives a greater priority to the publication of replication studies; initiates a debate about how to respond to failed replications; adopts a more critical attitude to the importance of attaining statistical significance; discourages p-hacking and Hypothesizing After Results are Known (HARKing); assesses the long-term effects of pre-registering research; and supports stronger procedures to attest to the authenticity of data in research papers. Our contribution locates these issues in the context of a growing crisis of confidence in the value of social science research. We also challenge individual researchers to reassert the primacy of disinterested academic inquiry above pressures that can lead to an erosion of scholarly integrity.

Suggested Citation

  • Craig, Russell & Cox, Adam & Tourish, Dennis & Thorpe, Alistair, 2020. "Using retracted journal articles in psychology to understand research misconduct in the social sciences: What is to be done?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(4).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:49:y:2020:i:4:s004873332030010x
    DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2020.103930
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004873332030010X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.respol.2020.103930?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hall, Jeremy & Martin, Ben R., 2019. "Towards a taxonomy of research misconduct: The case of business school research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 414-427.
    2. Jelte M. Wicherts, 2011. "Psychology must learn a lesson from fraud case," Nature, Nature, vol. 480(7375), pages 7-7, December.
    3. Blakeley B. McShane & David Gal & Andrew Gelman & Christian Robert & Jennifer L. Tackett, 2019. "Abandon Statistical Significance," The American Statistician, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 73(S1), pages 235-245, March.
    4. Ronald L. Wasserstein & Nicole A. Lazar, 2016. "The ASA's Statement on p -Values: Context, Process, and Purpose," The American Statistician, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 70(2), pages 129-133, May.
    5. Megan L Head & Luke Holman & Rob Lanfear & Andrew T Kahn & Michael D Jennions, 2015. "The Extent and Consequences of P-Hacking in Science," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(3), pages 1-15, March.
    6. Ewen Callaway, 2011. "Report finds massive fraud at Dutch universities," Nature, Nature, vol. 479(7371), pages 15-15, November.
    7. Gabriel, Allison S. & Wessel, Jennifer L., 2013. "A Step Too Far? Why Publishing Raw Datasets May Hinder Data Collection," Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Cambridge University Press, vol. 6(3), pages 287-290, September.
    8. Dorothy Bishop, 2019. "Rein in the four horsemen of irreproducibility," Nature, Nature, vol. 568(7753), pages 435-435, April.
    9. Raymond Hubbard, 2019. "Will the ASA's Efforts to Improve Statistical Practice be Successful? Some Evidence to the Contrary," The American Statistician, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 73(S1), pages 31-35, March.
    10. P. Dorta-González & M. I. Dorta-González, 2013. "Comparing journals from different fields of science and social science through a JCR subject categories normalized impact factor," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(2), pages 645-672, May.
    11. Ronald D. Fricker & Katherine Burke & Xiaoyan Han & William H. Woodall, 2019. "Assessing the Statistical Analyses Used in Basic and Applied Social Psychology After Their p-Value Ban," The American Statistician, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 73(S1), pages 374-384, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Istvan-Szilard Szilagyi & Gregor A. Schittek & Christoph Klivinyi & Holger Simonis & Torsten Ulrich & Helmar Bornemann-Cimenti, 2022. "Citation of retracted research: a case-controlled, ten-year follow-up scientometric analysis of Scott S. Reuben’s malpractice," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(5), pages 2611-2620, May.
    2. Salim Moussa, 2022. "The propagation of error: retracted articles in marketing and their citations," Italian Journal of Marketing, Springer, vol. 2022(1), pages 11-36, March.
    3. Pfeil, Katharina & Necker, Sarah & Feld, Lars P., 2023. "Compliance management in research institutes: Boon or bane?," Freiburg Discussion Papers on Constitutional Economics 23/1, Walter Eucken Institut e.V..
    4. Salandra, Rossella & Criscuolo, Paola & Salter, Ammon, 2021. "Directing scientists away from potentially biased publications: the role of systematic reviews in health care," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(1).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Uwe Hassler & Marc‐Oliver Pohle, 2022. "Unlucky Number 13? Manipulating Evidence Subject to Snooping," International Statistical Review, International Statistical Institute, vol. 90(2), pages 397-410, August.
    2. Julia Roloff & Michael J. Zyphur, 2019. "Null Findings, Replications and Preregistered Studies in Business Ethics Research," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 160(3), pages 609-619, December.
    3. Freuli, Francesca & Held, Leonhard & Heyard, Rachel, 2022. "Replication Success under Questionable Research Practices - A Simulation Study," I4R Discussion Paper Series 2, The Institute for Replication (I4R).
    4. Graham Elliott & Nikolay Kudrin & Kaspar Wuthrich, 2022. "The Power of Tests for Detecting $p$-Hacking," Papers 2205.07950, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2023.
    5. Heckelei, Thomas & Huettel, Silke & Odening, Martin & Rommel, Jens, 2021. "The replicability crisis and the p-value debate – what are the consequences for the agricultural and food economics community?," Discussion Papers 316369, University of Bonn, Institute for Food and Resource Economics.
    6. David J. Hand, 2022. "Trustworthiness of statistical inference," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 185(1), pages 329-347, January.
    7. Hirschauer, Norbert & Grüner, Sven & Mußhoff, Oliver & Becker, Claudia, 2020. "Inference in economic experiments," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 14, pages 1-14.
    8. Guillaume Coqueret, 2023. "Forking paths in financial economics," Papers 2401.08606, arXiv.org.
    9. Salandra, Rossella & Criscuolo, Paola & Salter, Ammon, 2021. "Directing scientists away from potentially biased publications: the role of systematic reviews in health care," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(1).
    10. Jeremy Arkes, 2020. "Teaching Graduate (and Undergraduate) Econometrics: Some Sensible Shifts to Improve Efficiency, Effectiveness, and Usefulness," Econometrics, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-23, September.
    11. Rigdon, Edward E., 2023. "How improper dichotomization and the misrepresentation of uncertainty undermine social science research," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 165(C).
    12. Johnstone, David, 2022. "Accounting research and the significance test crisis," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    13. Bruns, Stephan B. & Asanov, Igor & Bode, Rasmus & Dunger, Melanie & Funk, Christoph & Hassan, Sherif M. & Hauschildt, Julia & Heinisch, Dominik & Kempa, Karol & König, Johannes & Lips, Johannes & Verb, 2019. "Reporting errors and biases in published empirical findings: Evidence from innovation research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    14. Freuli, Francesca & Held, Leonhard & Heyard, Rachel, 2022. "Replication success under questionable research practices – a simulation study," MetaArXiv s4b65, Center for Open Science.
    15. Beau Coker & Cynthia Rudin & Gary King, 2021. "A Theory of Statistical Inference for Ensuring the Robustness of Scientific Results," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(10), pages 6174-6197, October.
    16. Jyotirmoy Sarkar, 2018. "Will P†Value Triumph over Abuses and Attacks?," Biostatistics and Biometrics Open Access Journal, Juniper Publishers Inc., vol. 7(4), pages 66-71, July.
    17. Zachary Van Winkle & Anette Fasang, 2021. "The complexity of employment and family life courses across 20th century Europe: More evidence for larger cross-national differences but little change across 1916‒1966 birth cohorts," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 44(32), pages 775-810.
    18. Chatelain, Jean-Bernard & Ralf, Kirsten, 2018. "Publish and Perish: Creative Destruction and Macroeconomic Theory," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 46(2), pages 65-101.
    19. Brodeur, Abel & Cook, Nikolai & Heyes, Anthony, 2022. "We Need to Talk about Mechanical Turk: What 22,989 Hypothesis Tests Tell Us about Publication Bias and p-Hacking in Online Experiments," IZA Discussion Papers 15478, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    20. Juan Miguel Campanario, 2018. "Are leaders really leading? Journals that are first in Web of Science subject categories in the context of their groups," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(1), pages 111-130, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Misconduct; Psychology; Research; Replication; Retractions;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • K10 - Law and Economics - - Basic Areas of Law - - - General (Constitutional Law)
    • K11 - Law and Economics - - Basic Areas of Law - - - Property Law
    • K42 - Law and Economics - - Legal Procedure, the Legal System, and Illegal Behavior - - - Illegal Behavior and the Enforcement of Law
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:49:y:2020:i:4:s004873332030010x. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/respol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.