Bestiary of Questionable Research Practices in Psychology
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Questionable research practices (QRPs) pose a significant threat to the quality of scientific research. However, historically, they remain ill-defined, and a comprehensive list of QRPs is lacking. In this article, we address this concern by defining, collecting, and categorizing QRPs using a community-consensus method. Collaborators of the study agreed on the following definition: QRPs are ways of producing, maintaining, sharing, analyzing, or interpreting data that are likely to produce misleading conclusions, typically in the interest of the researcher. QRPs are not normally considered to include research practices that are prohibited or proscribed in the researcher’s field (e.g., fraud, research misconduct). Neither do they include random researcher error (e.g., accidental data loss). Drawing from both iterative discussions and existing literature, we collected, defined, and categorized 40 QRPs for quantitative research. We also considered attributes such as potential harms, detectability, clues, and preventive measures for each QRP. The results suggest that QRPs are pervasive and versatile and have the potential to undermine all stages of the scientific enterprise. This work contributes to the maintenance of research integrity, transparency, and reliability by raising awareness for and improving the understanding of QRPs in quantitative psychological research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | MetaresearchResearch integrity Domain: Methods · Genre: Methods About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | high |
| gpt | MetaresearchResearch integrity Domain: Methods · Genre: Methods About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Theoretical or conceptual | medium |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.526 | 0.505 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it