What Crisis? Management Researchers’ Experiences with and Views of Scholarly Misconduct

Hopp, Christian; Hoover, Gary A. (2019). What Crisis? Management Researchers’ Experiences with and Views of Scholarly Misconduct Science and Engineering Ethics, 25(5), pp. 1549-1588. Springer 10.1007/s11948-018-0079-4

[img] Text
Hopp-Hoover2019_Article_WhatCrisisManagementResearcher.pdf - Published Version
Restricted to registered users only
Available under License Publisher holds Copyright.

Download (910kB) | Request a copy

This research presents the results of a survey regarding scientific misconduct and questionable research practices elicited from a sample of 1215 management researchers. We find that misconduct (research that was either fabricated or falsified) is not encountered often by reviewers nor editors. Yet, there is a strong prevalence of misrepresentations (method inadequacy, omission or withholding of contradic‑tory results, dropping of unsupported hypotheses). When it comes to potential meth‑odological improvements, those that are skeptical about the empirical body of work being published see merit in replication studies. Yet, a sizeable majority of editors and authors eschew open data policies, which points to hidden costs and limited incentives for data sharing in management research.

Item Type:

Journal Article (Original Article)

Division/Institute:

Business > Business Foundations and Methods

Name:

Hopp, Christian0000-0002-4095-092X and
Hoover, Gary A.

ISSN:

1353-3452

Publisher:

Springer

Language:

English

Submitter:

Christian Hopp

Date Deposited:

15 Sep 2020 16:06

Last Modified:

15 Sep 2020 16:06

Publisher DOI:

10.1007/s11948-018-0079-4

Uncontrolled Keywords:

Scientific misconduct, Data fabrication, Data misrepresentation, Ethics

ARBOR DOI:

10.24451/arbor.11977

URI:

https://arbor.bfh.ch/id/eprint/11977

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item
Provide Feedback