View
123
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
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.
Retracted publications per 10,000 published publications by year in PubMed and PsycINFO.
PubMed data by Saunders, N. (13.9.2016). PubMed retractions report. Retrieved from https://rpubs.com/neilfws/65778
Increasing retraction rates
Retracted publications per 10,000 published publications by year in PubMed and PsycINFO.
PubMed data by Saunders, N. (13.9.2016). PubMed retractions report. Retrieved from https://rpubs.com/neilfws/65778
Increasing retraction rates
Why does this happen?Two explanations:
1. Declining quality of published articles
(cf. Fanelli 2013: “growing misconduct hypothesis”)
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
2 Plagiarism Plagiarism; self-plagiarism, duplicate publication
3 Other misconduct e.g., authorship issues; legal issues etc.
4 „Error“ Honest error; dubious error (maybe unproven misconduct)
5 Publisher error e.g., article published in wrong issue or wrong journal
6 Other reasons Not matching any other category
Method: Variables
Reason for retraction: FraudAccused author: ……Subject field(s): ……
Year of publication: 2012Year of retraction: 2012
Source: JPSP 103, 605.
Method: Variables
Source: JPSP 103, 605.
Reason for retraction: FraudAccused author: Smeesters, DirkSubject field(s): ……
Year of publication: 2012Year of retraction: 2012
Reason for retraction: FraudAccused author: Smeesters, DirkSubject field(s): ……
Year of publication: 2012Year of retraction: 2012
Method: Variables
Source: JPSP 103, 605.
PsycINFO content classification21** General Psychology
22** Psychometrics & Statistics & Methodology
23** Human Experimental Psychology
24** Animal Experimental & Comparative Psychology
25** Physiological Psychology & Neuroscience
26** Psychology & The Humanities
27** Communication Systems
28** Developmental Psychology
29** Social Processes & Social Issues
30** Social Psychology
31** Personality Psychology
32** Psychological & Physical Disorders
33** Health & Mental Health Treatment & Prevention
34** Professional Psychological & Health Personnel Issues
35** Educational Psychology
36** Industrial & Organizational Psychology
37** Sport Psychology & Leisure
38** Military Psychology
39** Consumer Psychology
40** Engineering & Environmental Psychology
41** Intelligent Systems
42** Forensic Psychology & Legal Issues
Method: Variables
Source: JPSP 103, 605.
Reason for retraction: FraudAccused author: Smeesters, DirkSubject field(s): Personality Psychology [31** ]
Year of publication: 2012Year of retraction: 2012
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)
armin.guenther@zpid.de
Recommended