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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Neoh, Michelle Jin Yee, Carollo, Alessandro, Lee, Albert, Esposito, Gianluca
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