Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Preventing unethical publication behavior of quantitative empirical research by changing editorial policies

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Business Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Recent cases of unethical publication behavior have raised the question of how to address it. Because scientific misconduct (conduct inconsistent with accepted scientific standards) can occur on a continuum ranging from honest errors to outright fraud, there is a need to change editorial policies to reduce the existence of any gray areas. In the case of quantitative empirical research, misconduct begins with honorary and ghost authors, plagiarism and self-plagiarism, and extends to manipulation or even fabrication of data and the reporting of biased or false results. It is suggested that journals should retract articles, inform retraction watch more frequently, use plagiarism software, ask for better and more detailed documentation of procedures so that research can be replicated and potentially analysed as manipulation, and reveal possible affiliations that might lead to biases. These policies will also facilitate faster learning, which will be beneficial to society.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Albers S (2009) Editorial: well documented articles achieve more impact. BuR Bus Res 2(1):8–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Albers S (2012) Optimizable and implementable aggregate response modeling for marketing decision support. Int J Res Mark 29(2):111–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Albers S, André B (2012) Wovon hängt die Leistung in Forschung und Lehre ab? Eine Analyse deutscher betriebswirtschaftlicher Fachbereiche basierend auf den Daten des Centrums für Hochschulentwicklung und des Handelsblatts, Arbeitspapier, Kühne Logistics University, Hamburg

  • Anderson RG, Greene WH, McCullough BD, Vinod HD (2008) The role of data/code archives in the future of economic research. J Econ Methodol 15(1):99–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Auspurg K, Thomas H (2011) What fuels publication bias? Theoretical and empirical analyses of risk factors using the caliper test. Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik 231(5–6):636–660

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauer J, Jochen G (2011) Difficulties detecting fraud? The use of Benford’s law on regression tables. Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik 231(5–6):733–748

    Google Scholar 

  • Benford F (1938) The law of anomalous numbers. Proc Am Philos Soc 78(4):551–572

    Google Scholar 

  • Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (2011) Code of conduct and best practice guidelines for journal editors. http://www.publicationethics.org

  • Cossette P (2004) Research integrity: an exploratory survey of administrative science faculties. J Bus Ethics 49:213–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desai PS (2013) Editorial: marketing science replication and disclosure policy. Mark Sci 32(1):1–3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (1998) Proposals for safeguarding good scientific practice. Wiley-VCH, Weinheim

    Google Scholar 

  • Diekmann A (2011) Are most published research findings false? Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik 231(5–6):628–635

    Google Scholar 

  • Erasmus University (2012) Report by the committee for inquiry of scientific integrity. Inquiry into a possible violation by Dirk Smeesters, 28 June 2012

  • Evanschitzky H, Baumgarth C, Hubbard R, Scott Armstrong J (2007) Replication research’s disturbing trend. J Bus Res 60(4):411–415

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fanelli D (2009) How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS ONE 4(5):e5738

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fanelli D (2012) Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries. Scientometrics 90:891–904

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flanagin A, Carey LA, Fontanarosa PB, Phillips SG, Pace BP, Lundberg GD, Rennie D (1998) Prevalence of articles with honorary authors and ghost authors in peer-reviewed medical journals. J Am Med Assoc 280(3):222–224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frenzen H, Hansen A, Krafft M, Mantrala MK, Schmidt S (2010) Delegation of pricing authority to the sales force: an agency-theoretic perspective of its determinants and impact on performance. Int J Res Mark 27(1):58–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fung R (2010) Data anomalies within the management literature, working paper. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1554684

  • Goodstein D (2010) On fact and fraud. Cautionary tales from the front lines of science. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Haucap J (2012) BWL: Kein Ranking ist auch keine Lösung. Ist die Wirkmächtigkeit des Handelsblatt-Rankings so groß, dass man es boykottieren muss? Handelsblatt

  • Honig B, Bedi A (2012) The fox in the hen house: a critical examination of plagiarism among members of the academy of management. Acad Manag Learn Educ 11(1):101–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Journal of Economic Perspectives (2011) Correspondence between editor autor and author Frey. J Econ Perspect 25(3):239–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kieser A (2012) JOURQUAL-der Gebrauch, nicht der Missbrauch, ist das Problem. Oder: warum Wirtschaftsinformatik die beste deutschsprachige betriebswirtschaftliche Zeitschrift ist. Die Betriebswirtschaft 72(1):93–110

    Google Scholar 

  • Koole SL, Daniël L (2012) Rewarding replications: a sure and simple way to improve psychological science. Perspect Psychol Sci

  • Kumar MN (2010) A theoretical comparison of the models of prevention of research misconduct. Account Res 17:51–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lacetera N, Zirulia L (2011) The economics of scientific misconduct. J Law Econ Organ 27(3):568–603

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • List CJ (1985) Scientific fraud: social deviance or the failure of virtue? Sci Technol Hum Values 10(4):27–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luce MF, McGill MA, Peracchio L (2012) Promoting an environment of scientific integrity: individual and community responsibilities. J Consum Res 39(3):iii–viii

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martinson BC, Anderson MS, de Vries R (2005) Scientists behaving badly. Nature 435:737–738

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCullough BD, McGeary KA, Harrison T (2006) Lessons from the JMCB archive. J Money Credit Bank 38(4):1093–1107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCullough BD, McGeary KA, Harrison TD (2008) Do economics journal archives promote replicable research? Can J Econ 41(4):1406–1420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nosek BA, Jeffrey RS, Matt M (2012) Scientific utopia: II. Restructuring incentives and practices to promote truth over publishability. Perspect Psychol Sci

  • Nylenna M, Sigmund S (2006) Scientific misconduct: a new approach to prevention. Lancet 367:1882–1884

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Resnik DB, Stewart CN (2012) Misconduct versus honest error and scientific disagreement. Account Res Polic Quality Assur 19(1):56–63

    Google Scholar 

  • Schrader U, Hennig-Thurau T (2009) VHB-JOURQUAL2: method, results, and implications of the German academic association for business research’s journal ranking. BuR Bus Res 2(2):180–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schräpfler J-P (2011) Benford’s law as an instrument for fraud detection in surveys using the data of the socio-economic panel (SOEP). Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik 231(5–6):685–718

    Google Scholar 

  • Simmons JP, Nelson LD, Simonsohn U (2011) False-positive psychology: undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychol Sci XX:1–8

    Google Scholar 

  • Simonsohn U (2012) Just post it: the lesson from two cases of fabricated data detected by statistics alone, working paper. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2114571

  • Storbeck O (2012) BWL-Professor gerät ins Zwielicht. Fehler und Ungereimtheiten—Zeitschriften ziehen Studien des Mannheimer Forschers Ulrich Lichtenthaler zurück, Handelsblatt

  • Tilburg University (2011) Interim report regarding the breach of scientific integrity committed by professor D. A. Stapel, Tilburg, 31 Oct 2011

  • Verein für Socialpolitik (2012): Ethikkodex des Vereins für Socialpolitik, Fassung vom 21. Juli 2012. http://www.socialpolitik.org/inhalte/Ethikkodex_final.pdf. Accessed 16 Oct 2012

  • Warnecke H-J (2000) Erklärung des Präsidenten der FhG, Forschung and Lehre, 2/2000, 90

  • Wondracek G, Holz T, Kirda E, Kruegel C (2011). A practical attack to de-anonymize social network users, technical report TR-iSecLab-0110-001

  • Woolf PK (1991) Accountability and responsibility in research. J Bus Ethics 10:595–600

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I want to thank two anonymous reviewers and Michaela Haase, Arnold Picot, Bernd Skiera, Manfred Krafft, Michel Clement, Raoul Kübler, Kay Peters and Martin Spann for helpful comments that improved the quality of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Kühne Logistics University, Brooktorkai 20, 20457, Hamburg, Germany

    Sönke Albers

Authors
  1. Sönke Albers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sönke Albers.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Albers, S. Preventing unethical publication behavior of quantitative empirical research by changing editorial policies. J Bus Econ 84, 1151–1165 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-013-0675-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-013-0675-3

Keywords

JEL classification

Search

Navigation