Draft talk:Questionable research practices

This page was nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion on 11 October 2022. The result of the discussion was retarget.

The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this draft. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Nbreznau (talk · contribs)

Fraud

I don't think that Fraud belongs here; on my understanding "questionable research practises" are necessarily "questionable" generally not understood to be illegitimate by the protagonists, through ignorance or naivety. Some for example don't see what's so wrong with citing evidence that supports their claim while ignoring inconvenient evidence. Many have a poor understanding of statistical tests, and assume that if other papers have used a procedure then it has to be OK. Fraud however is unquestionably illegitimate.92.161.213.98 (talk) 13:11, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. Some would argue that selective reporting is unquestionably illegitimate too. I guess it seems that we could choose different points about where to draw the line. Rounding a p-value down is fraud, but not as bad a blatant faking of data. Because there is no clear line when it comes to ethics and because many studies include fraud in investigations of QRPs, I think we should keep it there (with the sentence I wrote about some consider it 'in' others 'not') Nbreznau (talk) 06:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft

@Nbreznau: I reverted your conversion to a content article, citing WP:OR issues. Please consider working on a WP:Draft version first. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 15:21, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That page is loaded with citations! Is this a joke? I cited two surveys directly and one meta analysis that find evidence of "Questionable Research Practices", including fraud (falsifying data). I see the value in mentioning in the page that 'fraud' is not always included in all lists, but cancelling the page seems a radical response. Is there anything in particular you could cite yourself (other than your preference for not including fraud in it) that would warrant canceling the page? I posted the page on Bluesky and people were excited and seemed willing to collaborate and improve it. It is clearly a topic in science and would provide a resource, I understand that that is the purpose of Wikipedia - to collaboratively build public knowledge. If you look at my CV, I've been working in the area of open science for over a decade. This cancellation does not fit with what I thought the values behind Wikipedia are, I'm sorry to say. And it really de-motivates me from contributing. In fact, I cannot even access the original article anymore to edit it, it just redirects to "Research". So I basically wasted an evening trying to improve your platform and public science.

Here are the studies that directly measure fraud in investigating QRPs. Are you saying you are more of an expert than them?

John, Leslie K., George Loewenstein, and Drazen Prelec. 2012. “Measuring the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices With Incentives for Truth Telling.” Psychological Science 23(5):524–32. doi: 10.1177/0956797611430953.

Fanelli, Daniele. 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.

Gopalakrishna, Gowri, Gerben ter Riet, Gerko Vink, Ineke Stoop, Jelte M. Wicherts, and Lex M. Bouter. 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. Nbreznau (talk) 02:43, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the article. The issues it raises are not just about "scientific integrity". There are some angles that need addressing; it does read a bit too much like an essay as against an encyclopedia article. But that's not a justification for killing the whole thing. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:05, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks very much. As I said, it is just a beginning. I will try to motivate others to contribute and find more time myself. Nbreznau (talk) 06:09, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand OR (and possibly WP:VERIFIABILITY). Thorough referencing is important, but not sufficient. You just said you cited two survey reports, which are WP:PRIMARY sources. Your experience does not make you a published secondary reliable source. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 13:24, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peer-reviewed scholarly articles are not primary sources. Nbreznau is not seeking license to add content on the basis of their own expertise. We welcome editors to contribute in areas where they do have expertise; it would be bizarre to believe otherwise. My recommendation: don't debate other editors, instead identify specific passages you believe need addressing. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:18, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read what I linked? From WP:PRIMARY: "similarly, a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source for the outcome of that experiment." WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 13:59, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

The current draft appears to be academically WP:REFBOMBed by a professionally connected scholar, so let's take a fresh look at sourcing. What are the three strongest sources (by the standards of WP:GNG) to establish this topic as notable? @Nbreznau: you can discuss and make suggestions on the talk page, but are possibly discouraged from directly editing (WP:COIEDIT). A meta-analysis is a good start; I assume you were referring to (Fanelli, 2009). WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 20:47, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also see secondary definition of the concept in one of the surveys. General notability seems very likely (though merging remains a possibility), but the overall content should still be clearly based on reliable sources. For example, the "general list of QRPs" should probably be rewritten, because it appears to be putting a lot of weight on the source "howscientistslie.com" rather than the peer-reviewed journal articles. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 21:37, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've seen enough. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa, I strongly suggest you step away from this topic. The suggestion that Nbreznau would be "discouraged" from editing on the basis of COI is one of the most ridiculous things I've seen on Wikipedia. Contrary to your view, we encourage people with relevant expertise to edit at Wikipedia. The editor who is evidently not suited to work on this topic is you. This is a view I'm prepared to see explored at WP:AN if necessary. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:41, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I find your unsupported warning unconvincing. This draft is an academic essay that would have to be massively altered to have an encyclopedic tone and weighting. The obvious path forward is slashing it down to a stub and rewriting it from the strongest sources, potentially to be merged with an article like scientific misconduct, research ethics, or scientific integrity. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 15:39, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]