Daily Bulletin


The Conversation

  • Written by Fiona Fidler, Associate Professor, School of Historical and Philosophical Studies, University of Melbourne

Cherry picking or hiding results, excluding data to meet statistical thresholds and presenting unexpected findings as though they were predicted all along – these are just some of the “questionable research practices” implicated in the replication crisis psychology and medicine have faced over the last half a decade or so.

Read more: Science is in a reproducibility crisis – how do we resolve it?

We recently surveyed more than 800 ecologists and evolutionary biologists and found high rates of many of these practices. We believe this to be first documentation of these behaviours in these fields of science.

Our pre-print results have certain shock value, and their release attracted a lot of attention on social media.

  • 64% of surveyed researchers reported they had at least once failed to report results because they were not statistically significant (cherry picking)

  • 42% had collected more data after inspecting whether results were statistically significant (a form of “p hacking”)

  • 51% reported an unexpected finding as though it had been hypothesised from the start (known as “HARKing”, or Hypothesising After Results are Known).

Although these results are very similar to those that have been found in psychology, reactions suggest that they are surprising – at least to some ecology and evolution researchers.

There are many possible interpretations of our results. We expect there will also be many misconceptions about them and unjustified extrapolations. We talk though some of these below.

Read more: How we edit science part 2: significance testing, p-hacking and peer review

It’s fraud!

It’s not fraud. Scientific fraud involves fabricating data and carries heavy criminal penalties. The questionable research practices we focus on are by definition questionable: they sit in a grey area between acceptable practices and scientific misconduct.

Our survey found 'questionable research practices' by ecologists and biologists – here's what that means Not crazy. Not kooky. Scientists are just humans. from www.shutterstock.com

We did ask one question about fabricating data and the answer to that offered further evidence that it is very rare, consistent with findings from other fields.

Read more: Research fraud: the temptation to lie – and the challenges of regulation

Scientists lack integrity and we shouldn’t trust them

There are a few reasons why this should not be the take home message of our paper.

First, reactions to our results so far suggest an engaged, mature scientific community, ready to acknowledge and address these problems.

If anything, this sort of engagement should increase our trust in these scientists and their commitment to research integrity.

Second, the results tell us much more about structured incentives and institutions than they tell us about individuals and their personal integrity.

Read more: Publish or perish culture encourages scientists to cut corners

For example, these results tell us about the institution of scientific publishing, where negative (non statistically significant results) are all but banished from most journals in most fields of science, and where replication studies are virtually never published because of relentless focus on novel, “ground breaking” results.

The survey results tells us about scientific funding, again where “novel” (meaning positive, significant) findings are valued more than careful, cautious procedures and replication. They also tell us about universities, about the hiring and promotion practices within academic science that focus on publication metrics and overvalue quantity at the expense of quality.

So what do they mean, these questionable research practices admitted by the scientists in our survey? We think they’re best understood as the inevitable outcome of publication bias, funding protocols and an ever increasing pressure to publish.

Read more: Novelty in science – real necessity or distracting obsession?

We can’t base important decisions on current scientific evidence

There’s a risk our results will feed into a view that our science is not policy ready. In many areas, such as health and the environment, this could be very damaging, even disastrous.

One reason it’s unwarranted is that climate science is a model based science, and there have been many independent replications of these models. Similarly with immunisation trials.

We know that any criticism of scientific practice runs a risk in the context of anti-science sentiment, but such criticism is fundamental to the success of science.

Remaining open to criticism is science’s most powerful self-correction mechanism, and ultimately what makes the scientific evidence base trustworthy.

Our survey found 'questionable research practices' by ecologists and biologists – here's what that means Transparency can build trust in science and scientists. from www.shutterstock.com

Scientists are human and we need safeguards

This is an interpretation we wholeheartedly endorse. Scientists are human and subject to the same suite of cognitive biases – like confirmation bias – as the rest of us.

As we learn more about cognitive biases and how best to mitigate them in different circumstances, we need to feed this back into the norms of scientific practice.

Read more: Confirmation bias: A psychological phenomenon that helps explain why pundits got it wrong

The same is true of our knowledge about how people function under different incentive structures and conditions. This is the basis of many of the initiatives designed to make science more open and transparent.

The open science movement is about developing initiatives to protect against the influence of cognitive bias, and alter the incentive structures so that research using these questionable research practices stops being rewarded.

Some of these initiatives have been enthusiastically adopted by many scientists and journal editors. For example, many journals now publish analysis code and data along with their articles, and many have signed up to Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) guidelines.

Other initiatives offer great promise too. For example, registered report formats are now offered by some journals, mostly in psychology and medical fields. In a registered report, articles are reviewed on the strength of their underlying premise and approach, before data is collected. This removes the temptation to select only positive results or to apply different standards of rigour to negative results. In short, it thwarts publication bias.

We hope that by drawing attention to the prevalence of questionable research practices, our research will encourage support of these initiatives, and importantly, encourage institutions to support researchers in their own efforts to align their practice with their scientific values.

Authors: Fiona Fidler, Associate Professor, School of Historical and Philosophical Studies, University of Melbourne

Read more http://theconversation.com/our-survey-found-questionable-research-practices-by-ecologists-and-biologists-heres-what-that-means-94421

Writers Wanted

Should pregnant women have a COVID vaccine? The evidence says it's safe and effective

arrow_forward

Is the truth out there? How the Harvard-based Galileo Project will search the skies for alien technology

arrow_forward

Trampoline training: 6 tips for safe trampolining

arrow_forward

The Conversation
INTERWEBS DIGITAL AGENCY

Politics

Prime Minister Scott Morrison's interview with Ray Hadley, 2GB

RAY HADLEY: Prime Minister, good morning to you.   PRIME MINISTER: G’day, Ray.   HADLEY: Gee, you’ve had a week.   PRIME MINISTER: Well, there's been a lot of weeks like this. This time last...

Scott Morrison - avatar Scott Morrison

Ray Hadley's interview with Scott Morrison

RAY HADLEY: I'm going to go straight to the Prime Minister, Scott Morrison is on the line right now. Prime Minister, good morning to you.    PRIME MINISTER: Good morning, Ray.   HADLEY: Just d...

Ray Hadley - avatar Ray Hadley

Defence and Veterans suicide Royal Commission

Today the Government has formally established a Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide following approval by the Governor-General.   Prime Minister Scott Morrison said the Royal Commi...

Scott Morrison - avatar Scott Morrison

Business News

Why it takes time to buy a business

Covid has sent shockwaves through the business for sale marketplace. At Bsale we are finding there are now more buyers in the market than sellers which creates a unique opportunity. With enforc...

Vanessa Lovie - Bsale CEO - avatar Vanessa Lovie - Bsale CEO

4 Ways To Make Your Business Look Nicer

If you own a business of any kind, you already know the importance of your building looking nice both inside and out. The more presentable it looks, the more professional it looks. A professional lo...

NewsServices.com - avatar NewsServices.com

9 Smart Hacks for Your First Day at Work

No matter how much work experience you have, the first day with a new company can be very stressful. Even the biggest professionals find the change of location and work collective a little frighte...

Chloe Taylor - avatar Chloe Taylor