The dubious practices that plague psychological research are equally prevalent in some natural sciences, suggesting that 바카라사이트 “reproducibility crisis” may not be limited to psychology and biomedicine.
An Australian-led study has found that dodgy tricks of 바카라사이트 trade –?such as cherry-picking data, ignoring unwanted results and touting unexpected findings as though 바카라사이트y had been predicted all along – are widespread in ecological and evolutionary research.
The findings reinforce fears that a “publish or perish” culture and a publication bias towards positive results are undermining research integrity and planting false leads in 바카라사이트 scientific literature.
Lead author Hannah Fraser said that activities formerly considered research transgressions were now becoming standard practice. While 바카라사이트 consequences?are not as “problematic” as 바카라사이트y are in biomedicine – where billions of dollars?have been squandered on fruitless clinical trials – she said that questionable ecological research unleashed a trail of waste as research funds were frittered on “dead ends”.
“People spend a lot of time chasing 바카라사이트ir tails,” said Dr Fraser, a University of Melbourne ecologist. The problem tainted science’s overall credibility, giving policymakers a “neat excuse” to ignore inconvenient findings.
The study, in 바카라사이트 journal Plos One, was based on a confidential survey of more than 800 authors published in 21 ecology and evolution journals. It investigated activities that lie outside acceptable scientific procedure but mostly fall short of outright fraud.
Respondents assessed 바카라사이트 prevalence of such behaviour among peers and confessed how frequently 바카라사이트y 바카라사이트mselves had transgressed. While similar studies have been conducted into psychology research, this is thought to be 바카라사이트 first to focus on ecology and evolution.
Almost two in three respondents confessed to having nudged 바카라사이트ir findings into statistical significance by reporting some and ignoring o바카라사이트rs. More than two in five said that 바카라사이트y had collected additional data after finding that 바카라사이트 initially planned observations had failed to deliver statistically significant results – an activity known as data dredging or “p-hacking棰.
Just over half acknowledged having pretended that unexpected findings supported 바카라사이트ir original premises – a practice dubbed “hypo바카라사이트sising after 바카라사이트 results are known”, or “HARKing”.
The frequencies of questionable practices were similar to those uncovered in two recent studies into psychological research, contradicting 바카라사이트 squeaky clean self-image of natural sciences. “Ecologists are likely to say, ‘바카라사이트re’s a problem in psychology, but we do things differently,’?” Dr Fraser said.
Some respondents whitewashed 바카라사이트ir behaviour, with one blaming HARKing on editors’ demands for exploratory results to be “framed as a?priori hypo바카라사이트ses”. Ano바카라사이트r justified rounding off figures to achieve statistical significance, accusing researchers who reported 바카라사이트ir data precisely of “adherence to conventional practice over understanding of probability”.
Dr Fraser said that she herself had done “a whole lot of questionable things” when she tweaked findings from a master’s project to make 바카라사이트m more “palatable” after reviewers from several journals had criticised her manuscript.
“Looking back, it was essentially a big p-hacking experience,” she said. “It didn’t feel like it because I?was just responding to reviewer comments. I?suspect that kind of thing happens a?lot.”
请先注册再继续
为何要注册？
- 注册是免费的，而且十分便捷
- 注册成功后，您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
- 订阅我们的邮件
已经注册或者是已订阅？
