Advertisement

What Crisis? Management Researchers’ Experiences with and Views of Scholarly Misconduct

  • Christian HoppEmail author
  • Gary A. Hoover
Original Paper
  • 57 Downloads

Abstract

This research presents the results of a survey regarding scientific misconduct and questionable research practices elicited from a sample of 1215 management researchers. We find that misconduct (research that was either fabricated or falsified) is not encountered often by reviewers nor editors. Yet, there is a strong prevalence of misrepresentations (method inadequacy, omission or withholding of contradictory results, dropping of unsupported hypotheses). When it comes to potential methodological improvements, those that are skeptical about the empirical body of work being published see merit in replication studies. Yet, a sizeable majority of editors and authors eschew open data policies, which points to hidden costs and limited incentives for data sharing in management research.

Keywords

Scientific misconduct Data fabrication Data misrepresentation Ethics 

JEL Classification

K30 A11 

References

  1. Andreoli-Versbach, P., & Mueller-Langer, F. (2014). Open access to data: An ideal professed but not practised. Research Policy, 43(9), 1621–1633.Google Scholar
  2. Antes, A. L., English, T., Baldwin, K. A., & DuBois, J. M. (2018). The role of culture and acculturation in researchers’ perceptions of rules in science. Science and Engineering Ethics, 24(2), 361–391.Google Scholar
  3. Asendorpf, J. B., Conner, M., De Fruyt, F., De Houwer, J., Denissen, J. J., Fiedler, K., et al. (2013). Recommendations for increasing replicability in psychology. European Journal of Personality, 27(2), 108–119.Google Scholar
  4. Azoulay, P., Bonatti, A., & Krieger, J. L. (2017). The career effects of scandal: Evidence from scientific retractions. Research Policy, 46(9), 1552–1569.Google Scholar
  5. Azoulay, P., Furman, J. L., Krieger, J. L., & Murray, F. (2015). Retractions. Review of Economics and Statistics, 97(5), 1118–1136.Google Scholar
  6. Azoulay, P., Graff Zivin, J., & Wang, J. (2010). Superstar extincition. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 125(2), 549–589.Google Scholar
  7. Barkema, H. G., & Vermeulen, F. (1998). International expansion through start-up or acquisition: A learning perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 7–26.Google Scholar
  8. Bebeau, M., & Davis, E. (1996). Survey of ethical issues in dental research. Journal of Dental Research, 75(2), 845–855.Google Scholar
  9. Bedeian, A. G., Taylor, S. G., & Miller, A. N. (2010). Management science on the credibility bubble: Cardinal sins and various misdemeanors. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 9(4), 715–725.Google Scholar
  10. Berghmans, S., Cousijn, H., Deakin, G., Meijer, I., Mulligan, A., Plume, A., et al. (2017). Open data: The researcher perspective-survey and case studies. New York: Mendeley Data.Google Scholar
  11. Borgman, C. L. (2012). The conundrum of sharing research data. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(6), 1059–1078.Google Scholar
  12. Borgman, C. L. (2015). Big data, little data, no data: Scholarship in the networked world. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Brandt, M. J., IJzerman, H., Dijksterhuis, A., Farach, F. J., Geller, J., Giner-Sorolla, R., et al. (2014). The replication recipe: What makes for a convincing replication? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 50(1), 217–224.Google Scholar
  14. Brodeur, A., Lé, M., Sangnier, M., & Zylberberg, Y. (2016). Star wars: The empirics strike back. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 8(1), 1–32.Google Scholar
  15. Broockman, D., Kalla, J., & Aronow, P. (2015). Irregularities in LaCour (2014). In Working paper. Stanford University.Google Scholar
  16. Bülow, W., & Helgesson, G. (2018). Criminalization of scientific misconduct. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-018-9865-7.Google Scholar
  17. Camerer, C. F., Dreber, A., Forsell, E., Ho, T. H., Huber, J., Johannesson, M., et al. (2016). Evaluating replicability of laboratory experiments in economics. Science, 351(6280), 1433–1436.Google Scholar
  18. Camerer, C. F., Dreber, A., Holzmeister, F., Ho, T., Huber, J., Johannesson, M., et al. (2018). Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(9), 637–644.Google Scholar
  19. Chambers, C. (2017). The seven deadly sins of psychology: A manifesto for reforming the culture of scientific practice. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Chang, A. C., & Li, P. (2015). Is economics research replicable? Sixty published papers from thirteen journals say “Usually Not”. In Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2015-083. Washington, D.C.: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.Google Scholar
  21. Crandall, C. S., & Sherman, J. W. (2016). On the scientific superiority of conceptual replications for scientific progress. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 66, 93–99.Google Scholar
  22. Devaney, T. A. (2001). Statistical significance, effect size, and replication: What do the journals say? The Journal of Experimental Education, 69(3), 310–320.Google Scholar
  23. Devereaux, P. J., Guyatt, G., Gerstein, H., Connolly, S., & Yusuf, S. (2016). Toward fairness in data sharing. The New England Journal of Medicine, 375(5), 405–407.Google Scholar
  24. Eastwood, S., Derish, P., Leash, E., & Ordway, S. (1996). Ethical issues in biomedical research: Perceptions and practices of postdoctoral research fellows responding to a survey. Science and Engineering Ethics, 2(1), 89–114.Google Scholar
  25. Evanschitzky, H., Baumgarth, C., Hubbard, R., & Armstrong, J. S. (2007). Replication research’s disturbing trend. Journal of Business Research, 60(4), 411–415.Google Scholar
  26. Fanelli, D. (2009). How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS ONE, 4(5), e5738.Google Scholar
  27. Fanelli, D. (2013). Only reporting guidelines can save (soft) science. European Journal of Personality, 27(2), 124–125.Google Scholar
  28. Fecher, B., Friesike, S., & Hebing, M. (2015). What drives academic data sharing? PLoS ONE, 10(2), e0118053.Google Scholar
  29. Frank, M. C., & Saxe, R. (2012). Teaching replication. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 600–604.Google Scholar
  30. Gardner, W., Lidz, C. W., & Hartwig, K. C. (2005). Authors’ reports about research integrity problems in clinical trials. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 26(2), 244–251.Google Scholar
  31. Gigerenzer, G. (2018). Statistical rituals: The replication delusion and how we got there. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(2), 198–218.Google Scholar
  32. Gorman, D. M., Elkins, A. D., & Lawley, M. (2017). A systems approach to understanding and improving research integrity. Science and Engineering Ethics.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9986-z.Google Scholar
  33. Hambrick, D. C. (2007). The field of management’s devotion to theory: Too much of a good thing? Academy of Management Journal, 50(6), 1346–1352.Google Scholar
  34. Harley, B., Faems, D., & Corbett, A. (2014). A few bad apples or the tip of an iceberg? Academic misconduct in publishing. Journal of Management Studies, 51(8), 1361–1363.Google Scholar
  35. Hartshorne, J. K., & Schachner, A. (2012). Tracking replicability as a method of post-publication open evaluation. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 6, 8.Google Scholar
  36. Honig, B., Lampel, J., Siegel, D., & Drnevich, P. (2014). Ethics in the production and dissemination of management research: Institutional failure or individual fallibility? Journal of Management Studies, 51(1), 118–142.Google Scholar
  37. Hubbard, R. (2015). Corrupt research: The case for reconceptualizing empirical management and social science. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  38. Hubbard, R., Vetter, D. E., & Little, E. L. (1998). Replication in strategic management: Scientific testing for validity, generalizability, and usefulness. Strategic Management Journal, 19(3), 243–254.Google Scholar
  39. Ioannidis, J. P., & Khoury, M. J. (2014). Assessing value in biomedical research: The PQRST of appraisal and reward. Journal of the American Medical Association, 312(5), 483–484.Google Scholar
  40. Jasny, B. R., Chin, G., Chong, L., & Vignieri, S. (2011). Again, and again, and again…. Science, 334(6060), 1225.Google Scholar
  41. John, L. K., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2012). Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychological Science, 23(5), 524–532.Google Scholar
  42. Karabag, S. F., & Berggren, C. (2016). Misconduct, marginality and editorial practices in management, business and economics journals. PLoS ONE, 11(7), e0159492.Google Scholar
  43. Kattenbraker, M. (2007). Health education research and publication: Ethical considerations and the response of health educators. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University. Doctoral thesis.Google Scholar
  44. Kerr, N. L. (1998). HARKing: Hypothesizing after the results are known. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(3), 196–217.Google Scholar
  45. Koole, S. L., & Lakens, D. (2012). Rewarding replications: A sure and simple way to improve psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 608–614.Google Scholar
  46. Leung, K. (2011). Presenting post hoc hypotheses as a priori: Ethical and theoretical issues. Management and Organization Review, 7(3), 471–479.Google Scholar
  47. Levelt, C., Noort, C., & Drenth, C. (2012). Falende wetenschap: De frauduleuze onderzoekspraktijken van sociaal-psycholoog Diederik Stapel. Tilburg: Tilburg University.Google Scholar
  48. Lichtenthaler, U. (2010). RETRACTED: Determinants of proactive and reactive technology licensing: A contingency perspective. Research Policy, 39(1), 55–66.Google Scholar
  49. List, J. A., Bailey, C. D., Euzent, P. J., & Martin, T. L. (2001). Academic economists behaving badly? A survey on three areas of unethical behavior. Economic Inquiry, 39(1), 162–170.Google Scholar
  50. Longo, D., & Drazen, J. (2016). Data sharing. New England Journal of Medicine, 374(1), 276–277.Google Scholar
  51. Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S., & De Vries, R. (2005). Scientists behaving badly. Nature, 435(7043), 737–738.Google Scholar
  52. McCullough, B. D., McGeary, K. A., & Harrison, T. D. (2008). Do economics journal archives promote replicable research? Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d’économique, 41(4), 1406–1420.Google Scholar
  53. Mellers, B., Hertwig, R., & Kahneman, D. (2001). Do frequency representations eliminate conjunction effects? An exercise in adversarial collaboration. Psychological Science, 12(4), 269–275.Google Scholar
  54. Merton, R. K. (1942). A note on science and democracy. Journal of Legal and Political Sociology, 1, 115.Google Scholar
  55. Nosek, B. A., Spies, J. R., & Motyl, M. (2012). Scientific utopia: II. Restructuring incentives and practices to promote truth over publishability. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 615–631.Google Scholar
  56. O’Boyle, E. H., Banks, G. C., & Gonzalez-Mulé, E. (2017). The chrysalis effect: How ugly initial results metamorphosize into beautiful articles. Journal of Management, 43(2), 376–399.Google Scholar
  57. Open Science Collaboration. (2012). An open, large-scale, collaborative effort to estimate the reproducibility of psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 657–660.Google Scholar
  58. Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), aac4716.Google Scholar
  59. Park, U. D., Borah, A., & Kotha, S. (2016). Signaling revisited: The use of signals in the market for IPOs. Strategic Management Journal, 37(11), 2362–2377.Google Scholar
  60. Pashler, H., & Harris, C. R. (2012). Is the replicability crisis overblown? Three arguments examined. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 531–536.Google Scholar
  61. Pashler, H., & Wagenmakers, E. J. (2012). Editors’ introduction to the special section on replicability in psychological science a crisis of confidence? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 528–530.Google Scholar
  62. Retraction Watch. (2016a). http://retractionwatch.com/category/by-author/ulrich-lichtenthaler/. Accessed 29 Nov. 2018.
  63. Retraction Watch. (2016b). http://retractionwatch.com/category/by-author/walumbwa/. Accessed 29 Nov. 2018.
  64. Rousseau, D. M. (2006). Is there such a thing as “evidence-based management”? Academy of Management Review, 31(2), 256–269.Google Scholar
  65. Schmidt, S. (2009). Shall we really do it again? The powerful concept of replication is neglected in the social sciences. Review of General Psychology, 13(2), 90.Google Scholar
  66. Schooler, J. (2011). Unpublished results hide the decline effect. Nature, 470(7335), 437.Google Scholar
  67. Seifert, B., & Gasser, T. (2004). Local polynomial smoothing. In S. Kotz, C. B. Read, N. Balakrishan, B. Vidakovic, & N. L. Johnson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of statistical sciences. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  68. Silberzahn, R., Simonsohn, U., & Uhlmann, E. L. (2014). Matched-names analysis reveals no evidence of name-meaning effects: A collaborative commentary on Silberzahn and Uhlmann (2013). Psychological Science, 25(7), 1504–1505.Google Scholar
  69. Silberzahn, R., & Uhlmann, E. L. (2013). It pays to be Herr Kaiser: Germans with noble-sounding surnames more often work as managers than as employees. Psychological Science, 24(12), 2437–2444.Google Scholar
  70. Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22(11), 1359–1366.Google Scholar
  71. Steen, R. G. (2011). Retractions in the scientific literature: Is the incidence of research fraud increasing? Journal of Medical Ethics, 37(4), 249–253.Google Scholar
  72. Stroebe, W., & Strack, F. (2014). The alleged crisis and the illusion of exact replication. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(1), 59–71.Google Scholar
  73. Tsang, E. W., & Yamanoi, J. (2016). International expansion through start-up or acquisition: A replication. Strategic Management Journal, 37(11), 2291–2306.Google Scholar
  74. Walumbwa, F. O., Luthans, F., Avey, J. B., & Oke, A. (2011). Retracted: Authentically leading groups: The mediating role of collective psychological capital and trust. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(1), 4–24.Google Scholar
  75. Zigmond, M. J., & Fischer, B. A. (2002). Beyond fabrication and plagiarism: The little murders of everyday science. Science and Engineering Ethics, 8(2), 229–234.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Technology EntrepreneurshipRWTH Aachen University, TIME Research AreaAachenGermany
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsUniversity of OklahomaNormanUSA

Personalised recommendations