Questionable research practices in ecology and evolution
Hannah Fraser; Timothy Parker; Shinichi Nakagawa; Ashley Barnett; Fiona Fidler · 2018 · PLoS ONE
WASTE classifies this as Negative / Null Result Report · AI classification, approximate
The study found no significant effect — useful as a negative control or null benchmark for your own design.
Abstract
We surveyed 807 researchers (494 ecologists and 313 evolutionary biologists) about their use of Questionable Research Practices (QRPs), including cherry picking statistically significant results, p hacking, and hypothesising after the results are known (HARKing). We also asked them to estimate the proportion of their colleagues that use each of these QRPs. Several of the QRPs were prevalent within the ecology and evolution research community. Across the two groups, we found 64% of surveyed researchers reported they had at least once failed to report results because they were not statistically
Abstract by Hannah Fraser; Timothy Parker; Shinichi Nakagawa; Ashley Barnett; Fiona Fidler, PLoS ONE (2018) — licensed CC BY 4.0.
About to run something similar?
Run an AI Precheck on your own design to catch failure modes like this one before you spend the time. Your first desk check is free.
Related failures
Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science
Negative / Null Result ReportWillingness to Share Research Data Is Related to the Strength of the Evidence and the Quality of Reporting of Statistical Results
Methods Dead-EndComparing multiple comparisons: practical guidance for choosing the best multiple comparisons test
Replication FailureInferential Statistics as Descriptive Statistics: There Is No Replication Crisis if We Don’t Expect Replication
Negative / Null Result ReportMOBILE BANKING ADOPTION: APPLICATION OF DIFFUSION OF INNOVATION THEORY
Negative / Null Result ReportEnjoyment and social influence: predicting mobile payment adoption
WASTE indexes this work — it does not host or republish it. Failure-type classification is automated and approximate.
Metadata source: OpenAlex · DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0200303