1.2 Questionable scientific practices

In the 2010s, disciplines such as psychology, economics, or the biomedical sciences were engulfed by a turmoil of distrust and lack of credibility. Although the Open Science movement is not new and it is at the core of the scientific method, a scientific reform movement emerged to inform on questionable scientific practices (John, Loewenstein, & Prelec, 2012). Synchronically, a heated debate emerged to find solutions to the credibility crisis; a crisis that was triggered by the lack of openness, transparency, and replicability (Spellman et al., 2017).

Questionable Scientific Practices

1. Failing to report all dependent measures
2. Collecting more data after seeing whether results were significant
3. Failing to report all conditions
4. Stopping collecting data earlier than planned because one found the result that one had been looking for
5. Rounding down p values selectively reporting
6. Selectively reporting studies that “worked”
7. Excluding data after looking at the impact of doing so
8. Reporting an unexpected finding as having been predicted from the start
9. Falsely claiming that results are unaffected by demographic variables (e.g., gender) when one is unsure (or knows that they do)
10. Falsifying data

Figure 1.2: Prevalence of questionable research practices (John, Loewenstein, \(\&\) Prelec, 2012)