Skip to main content
Search
Search
    Quick Search anywhere
    Quick search in Citations
Advanced Search
Skip main navigationClose Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu
Previous article
Next article
Open AccessReview Article

Scientific Misconduct in Psychology

A Systematic Review of Prevalence Estimates and New Empirical Data

Published Online:March 29, 2019https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000356

Abstract

Abstract. Spectacular cases of scientific misconduct have contributed to concerns about the validity of published results in psychology. In our systematic review, we identified 16 studies reporting prevalence estimates of scientific misconduct and questionable research practices (QRPs) in psychological research. Estimates from these studies varied due to differences in methods and scope. Unlike other disciplines, there was no reliable lower bound prevalence estimate of scientific misconduct based on identified cases available for psychology. Thus, we conducted an additional empirical investigation on the basis of retractions in the database PsycINFO. Our analyses showed that 0.82 per 10,000 journal articles in psychology were retracted due to scientific misconduct. Between the late 1990s and 2012, there was a steep increase. Articles retracted due to scientific misconduct were identified in 20 out of 22 PsycINFO subfields. These results show that measures aiming to reduce scientific misconduct should be promoted equally across all psychological subfields.

References *References marked with an asterisk were included in the systematic review.

  • *Agnoli, F., Wicherts, J. M., Veldkamp, C. L., Albiero, P., & Cubelli, R. (2017). Questionable research practices among Italian research psychologists. PLoS One, 12, e0172792. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0172792 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Anderson, M. S., Ronning, E. A., De Vries, R., & Martinson, B. C. (2007). The perverse effects of competition on scientists’ work and relationships. Science and Engineering Ethics, 13, 437–461. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-007-9042-5 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • *Bakker, M., & Wicherts, J. M. (2011). The (mis) reporting of statistical results in psychology journals. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 666–678. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0089-5 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • *Bakker, M., & Wicherts, J. M. (2014). Outlier removal and the relation with reporting errors and quality of psychological research. PLoS One, 9, e103360. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0103360 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Bechtel, H. K. Jr., & Pearson, W. Jr. (1985). Deviant scientists and scientific deviance. Deviant Behavior, 6, 237–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.1985.9967676 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • *Bosco, F. A., Aguinis, H., Field, J. G., Pierce, C. A., & Dalton, D. R. (2016). HARKing’s threat to organizational research: Evidence from primary and meta‐analytic sources. Personnel Psychology, 69, 709–750. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12111 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • *Braun, M., & Roussos, A. J. (2012). Psychotherapy researchers: Reported misbehaviors and opinions. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 7, 25–29. https://doi.org/10.1525/jer.2012.7.5.25 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Callaway, E. (2011). Report finds massive fraud at Dutch universities. Nature, 479, 15. https://doi.org/10.1038/479015a First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • *Caperos, J. M., & Pardo Merino, A. (2013). Consistency errors in p-values reported in Spanish psychology journals. Psicothema, 25, 408–414. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2012.207 First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Carey, B. (2011, November 2). Fraud case seen as a red flag for psychology research (pp. A3). New York, NY: New York Times. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Center for Scientific Integrity. (n.d.). Retraction watch database. Retrieved from http://retractiondatabase.org/RetractionSearch.aspx First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • *Cortina, J. M., Green, J. P., Keeler, K. R., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2017). Degrees of freedom in SEM: Are we testing the models that we claim to test? Organizational Research Methods, 20, 350–378. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428116676345 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Crocker, J., & Cooper, M. L. (2011). Addressing scientific fraud. Science, 334, 1182. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1216775 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • De Rond, M., & Miller, A. N. (2005). Publish or perish: Bane or boon of academic life? Journal of Management Inquiry, 14, 321–329. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492605276850 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Edwards, A. L. (1957). The social desirability variable in personality assessment and research. Worth, TX: Dryden Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Fanelli, D. (2009). How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS One, 4, e5738. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492605276850 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Fanelli, D. (2013). Why growing retractions are (mostly) a good sign. PLoS Medicine, 10, e1001563. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001563 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Fang, F. C., Steen, R. G., & Casadevall, A. (2012). Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109, 17028–17033. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1212247109 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Fiedler, K., & Schwarz, N. (2016). Questionable research practices revisited. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7, 45–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550615612150 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • *Franco, A., Malhotra, N., & Simonovits, G. (2016). Underreporting in psychology experiments: Evidence from a study registry. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7, 8–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550615598377 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Franzoni, C., Scellato, G., & Stephan, P. (2011). Changing incentives to publish. Science, 333, 702–703. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1197286 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • *Grieneisen, M. L., & Zhang, M. (2012). A comprehensive survey of retracted articles from the scholarly literature. PLoS One, 7, e44118. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0044118 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Gross, C. (2016). Scientific misconduct. Annual Review of Psychology, 67, 693–711. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0044118 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Hesselmann, F., Graf, V., Schmidt, M., & Reinhart, M. (2017). The visibility of scientific misconduct: A review of the literature on retracted journal articles. Current Sociology, 65, 814–845. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392116663807 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Hofmann, B., Helgesson, G., Juth, N., & Holm, S. (2015). Scientific dishonesty: A survey of doctoral students at the major medical faculties in Sweden and Norway. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 10, 380–388. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264615599686 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • *John, L. K., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2012). Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychological Science, 23, 524–532. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611430953 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Kish-Gephart, J. J., Harrison, D. A., & Treviño, L. K. (2010). Bad apples, bad cases, and bad barrels: Meta-analytic evidence about sources of unethical decisions at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017103 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Louis, K. S., Anderson, M. S., & Rosenberg, L. (1995). Academic misconduct and values: The department’s influence. The Review of Higher Education, 18, 393–422. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.1995.0007 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Margraf, J. (2015). Zur Lage der Psychologie [On the state of psychology]. Psychologische Rundschau, 66, 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1026/0033-3042/a000247 First citation in articleLink, Google Scholar

  • Marshall, E. (2000). Scientific misconduct–How prevalent is fraud? That’s a million-dollar question. Science, 290, 1662–1663. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.290.5497.1662 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • *Mazzola, J. J., & Deuling, J. K. (2013). Forgetting what we learned as graduate students: HARKing and selective outcome reporting in I–O journal articles. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 6, 279–284. https://doi.org/10.1111/iops.12049 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Michalek, A. M., Hutson, A. D., Wicher, C. P., & Trump, D. L. (2010). The costs and underappreciated consequences of research misconduct: A case study. PLoS Medicine, 7, e1000318. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000318 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • *Motyl, M., Demos, A. P., Carsel, T. S., Hanson, B. E., Melton, Z. J., Mueller, A. B., … Skitka, L. J. (2017). The state of social and personality science: Rotten to the core, not so bad, getting better, or getting worse? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113, 34–58. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000084 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Münch, R. (2014). Academic capitalism: Universities in the global struggle for excellence. New York, NY: Routledge. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • 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, 615–631. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612459058 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • *Nuijten, M. B., Hartgerink, C. H., van Assen, M. A., Epskamp, S., & Wicherts, J. M. (2016). The prevalence of statistical reporting errors in psychology (1985–2013). Behavior Research Methods, 48, 1205–1226. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0664-2 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Office of Research Integrity. (2011). Definition of research misconduct. Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved from http://ori.hhs.gov/definition-misconduct First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). (2000). Federal policy on research misconduct. Federal Register, 65, 76260–76264. Retrieved from https://ori.hhs.gov/federal-research-misconduct-policy First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Resnik, D. B., Neal, T., Raymond, A., & Kissling, G. E. (2015). Research misconduct definitions adopted by US research institutions. Accountability in Research, 22, 14–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2014.891943 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Rovenpor, D. R., & Gonzales, J. E. (2015). Replicability in psychological science: Challenges, opportunities, and how to stay up-to-date. Psychological Science Agenda, 29(1). Retrieved from www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2015/01/replicability.aspx First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • *Sacco, D. F., Bruton, S. V., & Brown, M. (2018). In defense of the questionable: Defining the basis of research scientists’ engagement in questionable research practices. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 13, 101–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264617743834 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • 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, 1359–1366. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611417632 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Stroebe, W., Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2012). Scientific misconduct and the myth of self-correction in science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 670–688. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612460687 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • *Stürmer, S., Oeberst, A., Trötschel, R., & Decker, O. (2017). Early-career researchers’ perceptions of the prevalence of questionable research practices, potential causes, and open science. Social Psychology, 48, 365–371. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000324 First citation in articleLink, Google Scholar

  • Świątkowski, W., & Dompnier, B. (2017). Replicability crisis in social psychology: Looking at the past to find new pathways for the future. International Review of Social Psychology, 30, 111–124. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000324 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Tenopir, C., Allard, S., Douglass, K., Aydinoglu, A. U., Wu, L., Read, E., … Frame, M. (2011). Data sharing by scientists: Practices and perceptions. PLoS One, 6, e21101. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0021101 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • *Veldkamp, C. L., Nuijten, M. B., Dominguez-Alvarez, L., van Assen, M. A., & Wicherts, J. M. (2014). Statistical reporting errors and collaboration on statistical analyses in psychological science. PLoS One, 9, e114876. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0114876 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Wager, E., & Williams, P. (2011). Why and how do journals retract articles? An analysis of Medline retractions 1988–2008. Journal of Medical Ethics, 37, 567–570. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2010.040964 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar