4.3 Article

Questionable Research Practices and Open Science in Quantitative Criminology

期刊

JOURNAL OF QUANTITATIVE CRIMINOLOGY
卷 39, 期 1, 页码 21-51

出版社

SPRINGER/PLENUM PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1007/s10940-021-09525-6

关键词

Questionable research practices; Meta-research; Open science; Reproducibility

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study examines the prevalence of questionable research practices (QRPs) and open science practices (OSPs) in criminology, and explores researchers' opinions on these practices. The results show that both QRPs and OSPs are common in quantitative criminology, with researchers being more supportive of OSPs. Methodological training does not seem to be associated with the use of either QRPs or OSPs. The study also highlights the need for further reforms to reduce QRP use and promote the use of OSPs in order to improve the validity and reproducibility of criminological research.
Objectives Questionable research practices (QRPs) lead to incorrect research results and contribute to irreproducibility in science. Researchers and institutions have proposed open science practices (OSPs) to improve the detectability of QRPs and the credibility of science. We examine the prevalence of QRPs and OSPs in criminology, and researchers' opinions of those practices. Methods We administered an anonymous survey to authors of articles published in criminology journals. Respondents self-reported their own use of 10 QRPs and 5 OSPs. They also estimated the prevalence of use by others, and reported their attitudes toward the practices. Results QRPs and OSPs are both common in quantitative criminology, about as common as they are in other fields. Criminologists who responded to our survey support using QRPs in some circumstances, but are even more supportive of using OSPs. We did not detect a significant relationship between methodological training and either QRP or OSP use. Support for QRPs is negatively and significantly associated with support for OSPs. Perceived prevalence estimates for some practices resembled a uniform distribution, suggesting criminologists have little knowledge of the proportion of researchers that engage in certain questionable practices. Conclusions Most quantitative criminologists in our sample have used QRPs, and many have used multiple QRPs. Moreover, there was substantial support for QRPs, raising questions about the validity and reproducibility of published criminological research. We found promising levels of OSP use, albeit at levels lagging what researchers endorse. The findings thus suggest that additional reforms are needed to decrease QRP use and increase the use of OSPs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据