Cargando…
Fifty years of research on questionable research practises in science: quantitative analysis of co-citation patterns
Questionable research practises (QRPs) have been the focus of the scientific community amid greater scrutiny and evidence highlighting issues with replicability across many fields of science. To capture the most impactful publications and the main thematic domains in the literature on QRPs, this stu...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
The Royal Society
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10582594/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37859842 http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsos.230677 |
_version_ | 1785122366950473728 |
---|---|
author | Neoh, Michelle Jin Yee Carollo, Alessandro Lee, Albert Esposito, Gianluca |
author_facet | Neoh, Michelle Jin Yee Carollo, Alessandro Lee, Albert Esposito, Gianluca |
author_sort | Neoh, Michelle Jin Yee |
collection | PubMed |
description | Questionable research practises (QRPs) have been the focus of the scientific community amid greater scrutiny and evidence highlighting issues with replicability across many fields of science. To capture the most impactful publications and the main thematic domains in the literature on QRPs, this study uses a document co-citation analysis. The analysis was conducted on a sample of 341 documents that covered the past 50 years of research in QRPs. Nine major thematic clusters emerged. Statistical reporting and statistical power emerged as key areas of research, where systemic-level factors in how research is conducted are consistently raised as the precipitating factors for QRPs. There is also an encouraging shift in the focus of research into open science practises designed to address engagement in QRPs. Such a shift is indicative of the growing momentum of the open science movement, and more research can be conducted on how these practises are employed on the ground and how their uptake by researchers can be further promoted. However, the results suggest that, while pre-registration and registered reports receive the most research interest, less attention has been paid to other open science practises (e.g. data sharing). |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10582594 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | The Royal Society |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-105825942023-10-19 Fifty years of research on questionable research practises in science: quantitative analysis of co-citation patterns Neoh, Michelle Jin Yee Carollo, Alessandro Lee, Albert Esposito, Gianluca R Soc Open Sci Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience Questionable research practises (QRPs) have been the focus of the scientific community amid greater scrutiny and evidence highlighting issues with replicability across many fields of science. To capture the most impactful publications and the main thematic domains in the literature on QRPs, this study uses a document co-citation analysis. The analysis was conducted on a sample of 341 documents that covered the past 50 years of research in QRPs. Nine major thematic clusters emerged. Statistical reporting and statistical power emerged as key areas of research, where systemic-level factors in how research is conducted are consistently raised as the precipitating factors for QRPs. There is also an encouraging shift in the focus of research into open science practises designed to address engagement in QRPs. Such a shift is indicative of the growing momentum of the open science movement, and more research can be conducted on how these practises are employed on the ground and how their uptake by researchers can be further promoted. However, the results suggest that, while pre-registration and registered reports receive the most research interest, less attention has been paid to other open science practises (e.g. data sharing). The Royal Society 2023-10-18 /pmc/articles/PMC10582594/ /pubmed/37859842 http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsos.230677 Text en © 2023 The Authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Published by the Royal Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, provided the original author and source are credited. |
spellingShingle | Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience Neoh, Michelle Jin Yee Carollo, Alessandro Lee, Albert Esposito, Gianluca Fifty years of research on questionable research practises in science: quantitative analysis of co-citation patterns |
title | Fifty years of research on questionable research practises in science: quantitative analysis of co-citation patterns |
title_full | Fifty years of research on questionable research practises in science: quantitative analysis of co-citation patterns |
title_fullStr | Fifty years of research on questionable research practises in science: quantitative analysis of co-citation patterns |
title_full_unstemmed | Fifty years of research on questionable research practises in science: quantitative analysis of co-citation patterns |
title_short | Fifty years of research on questionable research practises in science: quantitative analysis of co-citation patterns |
title_sort | fifty years of research on questionable research practises in science: quantitative analysis of co-citation patterns |
topic | Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10582594/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37859842 http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsos.230677 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT neohmichellejinyee fiftyyearsofresearchonquestionableresearchpractisesinsciencequantitativeanalysisofcocitationpatterns AT carolloalessandro fiftyyearsofresearchonquestionableresearchpractisesinsciencequantitativeanalysisofcocitationpatterns AT leealbert fiftyyearsofresearchonquestionableresearchpractisesinsciencequantitativeanalysisofcocitationpatterns AT espositogianluca fiftyyearsofresearchonquestionableresearchpractisesinsciencequantitativeanalysisofcocitationpatterns |