Hot Topic: Assuring the Quality of Psychological Research Research Misconduct and the Development of Article Retractions in Psychology and its Fields Armin Günther 50. Kongress der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie Universität Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany 18.–22. Sept. 2016 Leibniz Institute fo Psychology Information (ZPI Trier, Germa Research misconduct and the development of article retractions in Psychology and its fields by Armin Günther is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License .
23
Embed
Does Social Psychology Really Have More Retractions?
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Hot Topic: Assuring the Quality of Psychological Research
Research Misconduct and the Development of Article Retractions in Psychology and its Fields
Armin Günther
50. Kongress der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie
Universität Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany18.–22. Sept. 2016
Leibniz Institute for Psychology Information (ZPID)
Trier, Germany
Research misconduct and the development of article retractions in Psychology and its fields by Armin Günther is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
2. Increasing sensibility of scholarly communication system
(cf. Fanelli 2013: “stronger system hypothesis”)
Stefanie Kara (7.5.2016). Zu schön, um wahr zu sein. ZEIT-Online, retrieved from http://www.zeit.de/2015/17/sozialpsychologie-professor-daten-manipulation
Are some fields of psychological research more affected than other?
• Is Social Psychology affected more by research misconduct?
Enserink, M. (28.11.2012). Final report: Stapel affair points to bigger problems in social psychology. Science, retrieved from http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/11/final-report-stapel-affair-points-bigger-problems-social-psychology
Are some fields of psychological research more affected than other?
• Is Social Psychology affected more by research misconduct?
Method: Variables
Source: JPSP 103, 605.
Reason for retraction: ……Accused author: ……Subject field(s): ……
Year of publication: 2012Year of retraction: 2012
Reason for retraction: ……Accused author: ……Subject field(s): ……
Year of publication: 2012Year of retraction: 2012
Method: Variables
Source: JPSP 103, 605.
Reasons for article retractions1 Fraud Data fraud; data falsification; biasing design
Results: Development of retractions and reasons for retractions
How shape authors with very high numbers of retractions (outliers) the overall picture?
D. Stapel
Most authors have one, nearly all less than five articles retracted, one author (D. Stapel) more than 50, accounting for more than 20% of all retractions because of misconduct in the data. (Base: PsycINFO)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 500
20
40
60
80
100
120
Number of retracted articles per author
Number of authorswith retractions
Results: Types of research misconduct
General Psychology
Psychometrics & Statistics & Methodology
Human Experimental Psychology
Animal Experimental & Comparative Psychology
Physiological Psychology & Neuroscience
Psychology & The Humanities
Communication Systems
Developmental Psychology
Social Processes & Social Issues
Social Psychology
Personality Psychology
Psychological & Physical Disorders
Health & Mental Health Treatment & Prevention
Professional Psychological & Health Personnel Issues
Educational Psychology
Industrial & Organizational Psychology
Sport Psychology & Leisure
Military Psychology
Consumer Psychology
Engineering & Environmental Psychology
Intelligent Systems
Forensic Psychology & Legal Issues
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
1
5
15
3
41
0
3
7
9
34
18
41
36
4
7
11
3
0
9
7
3
1
Results: Research misconduct in different fields of psychology
Number of retracted articles
General Psychology
Psychometrics & Statistics & Methodology
Human Experimental Psychology
Animal Experimental & Comparative Psychology
Physiological Psychology & Neuroscience
Psychology & The Humanities
Communication Systems
Developmental Psychology
Social Processes & Social Issues
Social Psychology
Personality Psychology
Psychological & Physical Disorders
Health & Mental Health Treatment & Prevention
Professional Psychological & Health Personnel Issues
Educational Psychology
Industrial & Organizational Psychology
Sport Psychology & Leisure
Military Psychology
Consumer Psychology
Engineering & Environmental Psychology
Intelligent Systems
Forensic Psychology & Legal Issues
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
1
5
15
3
41
0
3
7
9
34
18
41
36
4
7
11
3
0
9
7
3
1
General Psychology
Psychometrics & Statistics & Methodology
Human Experimental Psychology
Animal Experimental & Comparative Psychology
Physiological Psychology & Neuroscience
Psychology & The Humanities
Communication Systems
Developmental Psychology
Social Processes & Social Issues
Social Psychology
Personality Psychology
Psychological & Physical Disorders
Health & Mental Health Treatment & Prevention
Professional Psychological & Health Personnel Issues
Educational Psychology
Industrial & Organizational Psychology
Sport Psychology & Leisure
Military Psychology
Consumer Psychology
Engineering & Environmental Psychology
Intelligent Systems
Forensic Psychology & Legal Issues
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
1
4
8
3
36
0
3
5
8
5
4
37
29
4
7
8
3
0
6
5
3
1
Results: Research misconduct in different fields of psychology
Number of retracted authors
Results: Research misconduct in different fields of psychology
Results: Research misconduct in different fields of psychology
Results: Concluding remarks
• Are article retractions a useful tool for assuring the quality of psychological research? No. Retractions mostly indicate, that processes of quality control have failed.
• Do retractions destroy knowledge and the advancement of knowledge?Generally not. We constantly re-build our knowledge in the light of new (positive or negative) evidence, For this, we need procedures and intelligent tools to update our knowledgebase.
• Why do retractions matter at all?The real problem with retractions is not, that single research results may be invalidated. The real problem is that – if retractions are based on research misconduct – they may undermine trust in the general reliability and integrity of research, which is fundamental for building scientific knowledge.
References
• 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. (2013). Why growing retractions are (mostly) a good sign. PLoS Med, 10(12),
e1001563. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001563
Contact:
Armin Günther
Leibniz Institute for Psychology Information (ZPID)