Questionable research practices

Yes, you read the end of the previous section correctly. There are questionable research practices that researchers may feel pressurised to use. Here are some examples:

• P-hacking: in quantitative research, p-hacking means exploiting techniques that increase the likelihood of obtaining a statistically significant result, for example by performing multiple analyses, or stopping data collection once a significant p-value is reached.
• Selective reporting: when results from research are deliberately not fully or accurately reported, in order to suppress negative or undesirable findings. For example, researchers might run two analyses but only report the one with significant findings, or be selective in what results are included in a report aimed at particular audiences.
• HARK-ing: is a shortening of ‘hypothesising after the results are known’. This is when researchers write their papers as if they had hypotheses that they then went on to test in their study, when really they made up the hypothesis after seeing their results, to pick one that best fit.
• Post-hoc justifications: means stating, after the fact, justifications for decisions made during the research project. For example, if the researcher only managed to recruit women for a study after trying to recruit all genders, but claimed in the paper that this was intentional.

  

Although pressures to publish can sometimes be seen as barriers to transparency, the benefits of writing transparently can also be seen as a positive incentive, as the next section shows.