179 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33999541)
1. HARKing, Cherry-Picking, P-Hacking, Fishing Expeditions, and Data Dredging and Mining as Questionable Research Practices.
Andrade C
J Clin Psychiatry; 2021 Feb; 82(1):. PubMed ID: 33999541
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Questionable research practices in ecology and evolution.
Fraser H; Parker T; Nakagawa S; Barnett A; Fidler F
PLoS One; 2018; 13(7):e0200303. PubMed ID: 30011289
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Are questionable research practices facilitating new discoveries in sport and exercise medicine? The proportion of supported hypotheses is implausibly high.
Büttner F; Toomey E; McClean S; Roe M; Delahunt E
Br J Sports Med; 2020 Nov; 54(22):1365-1371. PubMed ID: 32699001
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Playing with Data--Or How to Discourage Questionable Research Practices and Stimulate Researchers to Do Things Right.
Sijtsma K
Psychometrika; 2016 Mar; 81(1):1-15. PubMed ID: 25820980
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Individual, institutional, and scientific environment factors associated with questionable research practices in the reporting of messages and conclusions in scientific health services research publications.
Gerrits RG; Mulyanto J; Wammes JD; van den Berg MJ; Klazinga NS; Kringos DS
BMC Health Serv Res; 2020 Sep; 20(1):828. PubMed ID: 32883306
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Questionable Research Practices and Misconduct Among Norwegian Researchers.
Kaiser M; Drivdal L; Hjellbrekke J; Ingierd H; Rekdal OB
Sci Eng Ethics; 2021 Dec; 28(1):2. PubMed ID: 34932191
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Occurrence and nature of questionable research practices in the reporting of messages and conclusions in international scientific Health Services Research publications: a structured assessment of publications authored by researchers in the Netherlands.
Gerrits RG; Jansen T; Mulyanto J; van den Berg MJ; Klazinga NS; Kringos DS
BMJ Open; 2019 May; 9(5):e027903. PubMed ID: 31097488
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Exploring the Gray Area: Similarities and Differences in Questionable Research Practices (QRPs) Across Main Areas of Research.
Ravn T; Sørensen MP
Sci Eng Ethics; 2021 Jun; 27(4):40. PubMed ID: 34136962
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. What do participants think of our research practices? An examination of behavioural psychology participants' preferences.
Bottesini JG; Rhemtulla M; Vazire S
R Soc Open Sci; 2022 Apr; 9(4):200048. PubMed ID: 35425627
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Ethical Shades of Gray: International Frequency of Scientific Misconduct and Questionable Research Practices in Health Professions Education.
Artino AR; Driessen EW; Maggio LA
Acad Med; 2019 Jan; 94(1):76-84. PubMed ID: 30113363
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. In Defense of the Questionable: Defining the Basis of Research Scientists' Engagement in Questionable Research Practices.
Sacco DF; Bruton SV; Brown M
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics; 2018 Feb; 13(1):101-110. PubMed ID: 29179623
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. HARKing: hypothesizing after the results are known.
Kerr NL
Pers Soc Psychol Rev; 1998; 2(3):196-217. PubMed ID: 15647155
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Questionable research practices in student final theses - Prevalence, attitudes, and the role of the supervisor's perceived attitudes.
Krishna A; Peter SM
PLoS One; 2018; 13(8):e0203470. PubMed ID: 30161249
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. The harm of adjusting for multiple statistical testing in psychiatric research.
Primo de Carvalho Alves L; Sica da Rocha N
Acta Psychiatr Scand; 2019 Dec; 140(6):586-588. PubMed ID: 31560798
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Pitfalls and Misconducts in Medical Writing.
Lazarides MK; Gougoudi E; Papanas N
Int J Low Extrem Wounds; 2019 Dec; 18(4):350-353. PubMed ID: 31464160
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. P-Hacking: A Wake-Up Call for the Scientific Community.
Raj AT; Patil S; Sarode S; Salameh Z
Sci Eng Ethics; 2018 Dec; 24(6):1813-1814. PubMed ID: 29071570
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Common scientific and statistical errors in obesity research.
George BJ; Beasley TM; Brown AW; Dawson J; Dimova R; Divers J; Goldsby TU; Heo M; Kaiser KA; Keith SW; Kim MY; Li P; Mehta T; Oakes JM; Skinner A; Stuart E; Allison DB
Obesity (Silver Spring); 2016 Apr; 24(4):781-90. PubMed ID: 27028280
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Questionable research practices and cumulative science: The consequences of selective reporting on effect size bias and heterogeneity.
Anderson SF; Liu X
Psychol Methods; 2023 Mar; ():. PubMed ID: 36951733
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. The Weak Spots in Contemporary Science (and How to Fix Them).
Wicherts JM
Animals (Basel); 2017 Nov; 7(12):. PubMed ID: 29186879
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Cherry picking, HARKing, and P-hacking.
Elston DM
J Am Acad Dermatol; 2021 Jun; ():. PubMed ID: 34153392
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
