Agnoli, F., Wicherts, J. M., Veldkamp, C. L. S., Albiero, P., & Cubelli, R. (2017). Questionable research practices among italian research psychologists. PLOS ONE, 12(3), e0172792. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0172792
Aguinis, H., Gottfredson, R. K., & Joo, H. (2013). Best-Practice Recommendations for Defining, Identifying, and Handling Outliers. Organizational Research Methods, 16(2), 270–301. doi:10.1177/1094428112470848
Azamov, A. A. (2017, January). Gaming the system, scientific ’cartels’ band together to cite each others’ work. STAT. Retrieved from
Babbage, C. (1830). Reflections on the Decline of Science in England, and on Some of Its Causes. B. Fellowes [etc.].
Banks, G. C., O’Boyle, E. H., Pollack, J. M., White, C. D., Batchelor, J. H., Whelpley, C. E., … Adkins, C. L. (2016). Questions About Questionable Research Practices in the Field of Management: A Guest Commentary. Journal of Management, 42(1), 5–20. doi:10.1177/0149206315619011
Benjamin, D. J., Berger, J. O., Johannesson, M., Nosek, B. A., Wagenmakers, E.-J., Berk, R., … Johnson, V. E. (2018). Redefine statistical significance. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(1), 6–10. doi:10.1038/s41562-017-0189-z
Bolland, M. J., Grey, A., & Avenell, A. (2021). Citation of retracted publications: A challenging problem. Accountability in Research, 1–8. doi:10.1080/08989621.2021.1886933
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(3), 709–750. doi:10.1111/peps.12111
Bright, L. K. (2021). Why Do Scientists Lie? Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplements, 89, 117–129. doi:10.1017/S1358246121000102
Chu, J. S. G., & Evans, J. A. (2021). Slowed canonical progress in large fields of science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(41). doi:10.1073/pnas.2021636118
Chuard, P. J. C., Vrtílek, M., Head, M. L., & Jennions, M. D. (2019). Evidence that nonsignificant results are sometimes preferred: Reverse P-hacking or selective reporting? PLOS Biology, 17(1), e3000127. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3000127
Dahlgren, P. M. (2020). Media Echo Chambers: Selective Exposure and Confirmation Bias in Media Use, and its Consequences for Political Polarization. Göteborg: University of Gothenburg.
Dahlgren, P. M. (2022). Instructions for Reviewer 2: How to reject a manuscript for arbitrary reasons. OSF Preprints. doi:10.31219/
de Groot, Adriaan. D. (1956). The Meaning of Significance for Different Types of Research. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor de Psychologie en Haar Grensgebieden.
Evans, J. S. B. T., Newstead, S. E., & Byrne, R. M. J. (1993). Human reasoning: The psychology of deduction. Hove: Erlbaum.
Fanelli, D. (2009). How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data. PLOS ONE, 4(5), e5738. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005738
Fanelli, D., Costas, R., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2017). Meta-assessment of bias in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(14), 3714–3719. doi:10.1073/pnas.1618569114
Feest, U. (2019). Why Replication Is Overrated. Philosophy of Science, 86(5), 895–905. doi:10.1086/705451
Feynman, R. P., Leighton, R., & Hibbs, A. R. (1997). Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman! (E. Hutchings, Ed.) (Reprint edition.). New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Fiedler, K., & Schwarz, N. (2016). Questionable Research Practices Revisited. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7(1), 45–52. doi:10.1177/1948550615612150
Fraser, H., Parker, T., Nakagawa, S., Barnett, A., & Fidler, F. (2018). Questionable research practices in ecology and evolution. PLOS ONE, 13(7), e0200303. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0200303
Funk, C., Tyson, A., Kennedy, B., & Johnson, C. (2020, September). Science and Scientists Held in High Esteem Across Global Publics. Pew Research Center Science & Society. Retrieved from
Gelman, A. (2016). What has happened down here is the winds have changed. Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science. Retrieved from
Gelman, A., & Loken, E. (2013, November). The garden of forking paths: Why multiple comparisons can be a problem, even when there is no “fishing expedition” or “p-hacking” and the research hypothesis was posited ahead of time.
Gigerenzer, G. (2010). Personal Reflections on Theory and Psychology. Theory & Psychology, 20(6), 733–743. doi:10.1177/0959354310378184
Gigerenzer, G. (2011). Surrogates for Theory. APS Observer, 22(2).
Gigerenzer, G. (2018). The Bias Bias in Behavioral Economics. Review of Behavioral Economics, 5(3-4), 303–336. doi:10.1561/105.00000092
Gigerenzer, G., & Todd, P. M. (2001). Simple heuristics that make us smart. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gilovich, T. (1991). How we know what isn’t so: The fallibility of human reason in everyday life. New York, Great Britain: Free Press.
Gopalakrishna, G., Riet, G. ter, Vink, G., Stoop, I., Wicherts, J. M., & Bouter, L. M. (2022). Prevalence of questionable research practices, research misconduct and their potential explanatory factors: A survey among academic researchers in The Netherlands. PLOS ONE, 17(2), e0263023. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0263023
Gøtzsche, P. C. (2022). Citation bias: Questionable research practice or scientific misconduct? Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 115(1), 31–35. doi:10.1177/01410768221075881
Greenberg, S. A. (2009). How citation distortions create unfounded authority: Analysis of a citation network. BMJ, 339, b2680. doi:10.1136/bmj.b2680
Greenland, S. (2017). The need for cognitive science in methodology. American Journal of Epidemiology. doi:10.1093/aje/kwx259
Greenwald, A. G., Pratkanis, A. R., Leippe, M. R., & Baumgardner, M. H. (1986). Under what conditions does theory obstruct research progress? Psychological Review, 93(2), 216–229. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.93.2.216
Hacking, I. (1999). The social construction of what? Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Hahn, U. (2011). The Problem of Circularity in Evidence, Argument, and Explanation. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(2), 172–182. doi:10.1177/1745691611400240
Haslam, N. (2016). Concept Creep: Psychology’s Expanding Concepts of Harm and Pathology. Psychological Inquiry, 27(1), 1–17. doi:10.1080/1047840X.2016.1082418
Haslam, N., Dakin, B. C., Fabiano, F., McGrath, M. J., Rhee, J., Vylomova, E., … Wheeler, M. A. (2020). Harm inflation: Making sense of concept creep. European Review of Social Psychology, 31(1), 254–286. doi:10.1080/10463283.2020.1796080
Head, M. L., Holman, L., Lanfear, R., Kahn, A. T., & Jennions, M. D. (2015). The Extent and Consequences of P-Hacking in Science. PLOS Biology, 13(3). doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002106
Hollenbeck, J. R., & Wright, P. M. (2017). Harking, Sharking, and Tharking: Making the Case for Post Hoc Analysis of Scientific Data. Journal of Management, 43(1), 5–18. doi:10.1177/0149206316679487
Ingre, M., & Nilsonne, G. (2018). Estimating statistical power, posterior probability and publication bias of psychological research using the observed replication rate. Royal Society Open Science, 5(9), 181190. doi:10.1098/rsos.181190
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. PLoS Med, 2(8), e124. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
John, L. K., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2012). Measuring the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices With Incentives for Truth Telling. Psychological Science, 23(5), 524–532. doi:10.1177/0956797611430953
Kepes, S., Keener, S. K., McDaniel, M. A., & Hartman, N. S. (n.d.). Questionable research practices among researchers in the most research-productive management programs. Journal of Organizational Behavior. doi:10.1002/job.2623
Kerr, N. L. (1998). HARKing: Hypothesizing after the results are known. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(3), 196–217. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0203_4
Klein, J. R., & Roodman, A. (2005). Blind Analysis in Nuclear and Particle Physics. Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 55(1), 141–163. doi:10.1146/annurev.nucl.55.090704.151521
Kornfeld, D. S. (2012). Perspective: Research misconduct: The search for a remedy. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 87(7), 877–882. doi:10.1097/ACM.0b013e318257ee6a
Krishna, A., & Peter, S. M. (2018). Questionable research practices in student final theses Prevalence, attitudes, and the role of the supervisor’s perceived attitudes. PLOS ONE, 13(8), e0203470. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0203470
Krumholz, H. M. (2012). A Note to My Younger Colleagues. . .Be Brave. Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes, 5(3), 245–246. doi:10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.112.966473
Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480–498. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480
Kuran, T. (1997). Private Truths, Public Lies: The Social Consequences of Preference Falsification (Reprint edition.). Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Lakens, D. (2014). Performing high-powered studies efficiently with sequential analyses: Sequential analyses. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44(7), 701–710. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2023
Lakens, D., Adolfi, F. G., Albers, C. J., Anvari, F., Apps, M. A. J., Argamon, S. E., … Zwaan, R. A. (2018). Justify your alpha. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(3), 168–171. doi:10.1038/s41562-018-0311-x
Leek, J. T., & Jager, L. R. (2017). Is Most Published Research Really False? Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application, 4(1), 109–122. doi:10.1146/annurev-statistics-060116-054104
Lishner, D. A. (2021). HARKing: Conceptualizations, harms, and two fundamental remedies. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology. doi:10.1037/teo0000182
Luijendijk, H. J., & Koolman, X. (2012). The incentive to publish negative studies: How beta-blockers and depression got stuck in the publication cycle. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 65(5), 488–492. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.06.022
Mahoney, M. J. (1976). Scientist as subject: The psychological imperative. Cambridge, Mass: Ballinger Pub. Co.
Matthes, J., Marquart, F., Naderer, B., Arendt, F., Schmuck, D., & Adam, K. (2015). Questionable Research Practices in Experimental Communication Research: A Systematic Analysis From 1980 to 2013. Communication Methods and Measures, 9(4), 193–207. doi:10.1080/19312458.2015.1096334
Mayo, D. G. (2018). Statistical inference as severe testing: How to get beyond the statistics wars. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Meehl, P. E. (1990). Why Summaries of Research on Psychological Theories are Often Uninterpretable. Psychological Reports, 66(1), 195–244. doi:10.2466/pr0.1990.66.1.195
Moran, C., Richard, A., Wilson, K., Twomey, R., & Coroiu, A. (2021, July). I know it’s bad but I have been pressured into it”: Questionable research practices among psychology students in Canada. PsyArXiv. doi:10.31234/
Morgan, A. C., Economou, D. J., Way, S. F., & Clauset, A. (2018). Prestige drives epistemic inequality in the diffusion of scientific ideas. EPJ Data Science, 7(1), 40. doi:10.1140/epjds/s13688-018-0166-4
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(1), 34–58. doi:10.1037/pspa0000084
Moussa, S. (2022). A bibliometric investigation of the journals that were repeatedly suppressed from Clarivate’s Journal Citation Reports. Accountability in Research, 0(0), 1–21. doi:10.1080/08989621.2022.2071154
National Academy of Sciences (US), National Academy of Engineering (US) and Institute of Medicine (US) Panel on Scientific Responsibility and the Conduct of Research. (1992). Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process: Volume I. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US).
Norman, C. (1974). Guinea-pig charters. Nature, 251(5470), 2–3. doi:10.1038/251002a0
Nuijten, M. B., Hartgerink, C. H. J., van Assen, M. A. L. M., Epskamp, S., & Wicherts, J. M. (2016). The prevalence of statistical reporting errors in psychology (1985). Behavior Research Methods, 48(4), 1205–1226. doi:10.3758/s13428-015-0664-2
O’Boyle, E. H., Banks, G. C., & Gonzalez-Mulé, E. (2017). The Chrysalis Effect: How Ugly Initial Results Metamorphosize Into Beautiful Articles. Journal of Management, 43(2), 376–399. doi:10.1177/0149206314527133
Protzko, J. (2018). Null-hacking, a lurking problem. doi:10.31234/
Rohrer, J. M., Tierney, W., Uhlmann, E. L., DeBruine, L. M., Heyman, T., Jones, B., … Yarkoni, T. (2021). Putting the Self in Self-Correction: Findings From the Loss-of-Confidence Project. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(6), 1255–1269. doi:10.1177/1745691620964106
Rosnow, R. L., & Rosenthal, R. (1989). Statistical procedures and the justification of knowledge in psychological science. American Psychologist, 44(10), 1276–1284. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.44.10.1276
Rubin, M. (n.d.). The Costs of HARKing. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. doi:10.1093/bjps/axz050
Rubin, M. (2017). When Does HARKing Hurt? Identifying When Different Types of Undisclosed Post Hoc Hypothesizing Harm Scientific Progress. Review of General Psychology, 21(4), 308–320. doi:10.1037/gpr0000128
Schafmeister, F. (2021). The Effect of Replications on Citation Patterns: Evidence From a Large-Scale Reproducibility Project. Psychological Science, 09567976211005767. doi:10.1177/09567976211005767
Schimmack, U., & Bartoš, F. (2021). Estimating the false discovery risk in medical journals. Retrieved from
Schneider, K. C., & Holm, C. K. (1982). Deceptive Practices in Marketing Research: The Consumer’s Viewpoint. California Management Review, 24(3), 89–96. doi:10.2307/41164973
Sears, D. O. (1968). The Paradox of De Facto Selective Exposure Without Preference for Supportive Information. In R. P. Abelson, E. Aronsson, W. J. McGuire, T. M. Newcomb, M. J. Rosenberg, & P. H. Tannenbaum (Eds.), Theories of Cognitive Consistency: A Sourcebook (pp. 777–787). Chicago: Rand-McNally.
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(11), 1359–1366. doi:10.1177/0956797611417632
Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2012). A 21 Word Solution (No. ID 2160588). Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. Retrieved from
Simonsohn, U., Nelson, L. D., & Simmons, J. P. (2014). P-curve: A key to the file-drawer. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(2), 534–547. doi:10.1037/a0033242
Smaldino, E., & McElreath, R. (2016). The natural selection of bad science. Royal Society Open Science, 3(9). doi:10.1098/rsos.160384
Smithson, M. (1996). Science, Ignorance and Human Values. Journal of Human Values, 2(1), 67–81. doi:10.1177/097168589600200107
Stanovich, K. E., & Toplak, M. E. (2019). The need for intellectual diversity in psychological science: Our own studies of actively open-minded thinking as a case study. Cognition, 187, 156–166. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2019.03.006
Stefan, A., & Schönbrodt, F. (2022, March). Big Little Lies: A Compendium and Simulation of p-Hacking Strategies. PsyArXiv. doi:10.31234/
Stern, C. (2016). Undoing Insularity: A Small Study of Gender Sociology’s Big Problem. Econ Journal Watch, 13(3), 452–466.
Sun, Y., & Pan, Z. (2020). Not Published Is Not Perished: Addressing Publication Bias in Meta-Analytic Studies in Communication. Human Communication Research, 46(2-3), 300–321. doi:10.1093/hcr/hqz015
Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755–769. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00214.x
Urlings, M. J. E., Duyx, B., Swaen, G. M. H., Bouter, L. M., & Zeegers, M. P. (2021). Citation bias and other determinants of citation in biomedical research: Findings from six citation networks. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 132, 71–78. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.11.019
Walton, D. N. (2008). Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach (2nd ed.). Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wicherts, J. M., Veldkamp, C. L. S., Augusteijn, H. E. M., Bakker, M., van Aert, R. C. M., & van Assen, M. A. L. M. (2016). Degrees of Freedom in Planning, Running, Analyzing, and Reporting Psychological Studies: A Checklist to Avoid p-Hacking. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1–11. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01832
Yamin, P., Fei, M., Lahlou, S., & Levy, S. (2019). Using Social Norms to Change Behavior and Increase Sustainability in the Real World: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Sustainability, 11(20), 5847. doi:10.3390/su11205847
Yarkoni, T. (2018). No, it’s not The Incentivesit’s you. [citation needed]. Retrieved from

Did you look for your own work but didn’t find it? Then tell me! Self-promotion is encouraged.