Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Bestiary of Questionable Research Practices in Psychology

  • Tamás Nagy
  • , Jane Hergert
  • , Mahmoud M. Elsherif
  • , Lukas Wallrich
  • , Kathleen Schmidt
  • , Tal Waltzer
  • , Jason W. Payne
  • , Biljana Gjoneska
  • , Yashvin Seetahul
  • , Y. Andre Wang
  • , Daniel Scharfenberg
  • , Gabriella Tyson
  • , Yu Fang Yang
  • , Aleksandrina Skvortsova
  • , Samuel Alarie
  • , Katherine Graves
  • , Lukas K. Sotola
  • , David Moreau
  • , Eva Rubínová
  • Eötvös Loránd University
  • Humanistische Hochschule Berlin
  • FernUniversität in Hagen
  • University of Leicester
  • University of Birmingham
  • Birkbeck University of London
  • Ashland University
  • University of Toronto
  • Saint Francis Xavier University
  • Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts
  • University of Innsbruck
  • University of Cologne
  • King's College London
  • Free University of Berlin
  • Leiden University
  • University of Montreal
  • Université Laval
  • University of Texas at Arlington
  • Pace University
  • The University of Auckland
  • University of Aberdeen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

8 Scopus citations

Abstract

Questionable research practices (QRPs) pose a significant threat to the quality of scientific research. However, historically, they remain ill-defined, and a comprehensive list of QRPs is lacking. In this article, we address this concern by defining, collecting, and categorizing QRPs using a community-consensus method. Collaborators of the study agreed on the following definition: QRPs are ways of producing, maintaining, sharing, analyzing, or interpreting data that are likely to produce misleading conclusions, typically in the interest of the researcher. QRPs are not normally considered to include research practices that are prohibited or proscribed in the researcher’s field (e.g., fraud, research misconduct). Neither do they include random researcher error (e.g., accidental data loss). Drawing from both iterative discussions and existing literature, we collected, defined, and categorized 40 QRPs for quantitative research. We also considered attributes such as potential harms, detectability, clues, and preventive measures for each QRP. The results suggest that QRPs are pervasive and versatile and have the potential to undermine all stages of the scientific enterprise. This work contributes to the maintenance of research integrity, transparency, and reliability by raising awareness for and improving the understanding of QRPs in quantitative psychological research.

Original languageEnglish
Article number25152459251348431
JournalAdvances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science
Volume8
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 1 2025

Keywords

  • QRP
  • credibility crisis
  • expert consensus
  • metascience
  • open data
  • open science
  • research integrity
  • research methods

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Bestiary of Questionable Research Practices in Psychology'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this