Editorial: Evidence on Questionable Research Practices: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
Document Type
Article
Publication Date
6-25-2016
Abstract
Purpose Questionable research or reporting practices (QRPs) contribute to a growing concern regarding the credibility of research in the organizational sciences and related fields. Such practices include design, analytic, or reporting practices that may introduce biased evidence, which can have harmful implications for evidence-based practice, theory development, and perceptions of the rigor of science. Design/Methodology/Approach To assess the extent to which QRPs are actually a concern, we conducted a systematic review to consider the evidence on QRPs. Using a triangulation approach (e.g., by reviewing data from observations, sensitivity analyses, and surveys), we identified the good, the bad, and the ugly. Findings Of the 64 studies that fit our criteria, 6 appeared to find little to no evidence of engagement in QRPs and the other 58 found more severe evidence (91 %). Implications Drawing upon the findings, we provide recommendations for future research related to publication practices and academic training. Originality/value We report findings from studies that suggest that QRPs are not a problem, that QRPs are used at a suboptimal rate, and that QRPs present a threat to the viability of organizational science research.
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-016-9456-7
Recommended Citation
Banks, George C.; Rogelberg, Steven G.; Woznyj, Haley M.; Landis, Ronald S.; and Rupp, Deborah E., "Editorial: Evidence on Questionable Research Practices: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" (2016). Business & Economics Faculty Publications. 144.
https://digitalcommons.longwood.edu/business_facpubs/144
Original Citation
Banks, G. C., Rogelberg, S. G., Woznyj, H. J., Landis, R., Rupp, D. (2016). Questionable research practices: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Journal of Business and Psychology, 31(3), 323-338.
