Search results

The overall goal of science is to build a valid and reliable body of knowledge about the functioning of the world and how applying that knowledge can change it. As personnel and human resources management researchers, we aim to contribute to the respective bodies of knowledge to provide both employers and employees with a workable foundation to help with those problems they are confronted with. However, what research on research has consistently demonstrated is that the scientific endeavor possesses existential issues including a substantial lack of (a) solid theory, (b) replicability, (c) reproducibility, (d) proper and generalizable samples, (e) sufficient quality control (i.e., peer review), (f) robust and trustworthy statistical results, (g) availability of research, and (h) sufficient practical implications. In this chapter, we first sing a song of sorrow regarding the current state of the social sciences in general and personnel and human resources management specifically. Then, we investigate potential grievances that might have led to it (i.e., questionable research practices, misplaced incentives), only to end with a verse of hope by outlining an avenue for betterment (i.e., open science and policy changes at multiple levels).

The purpose of this paper is to discuss questionable research practices (QRPs) in business research, particularly in the logistics and supply chain management discipline, in light of antecedents influenced by the current academic environment and the consequences for academic rigour and relevance to stimulate thinking and debate among the academic community.

A literature review and autoethnographic approach were used to examine these issues based on over 60 years’ collective academic experience of the authors. Data were collected from discussions among the paper’s authors as well as recounting open discussions with other academics and journal editors to collate their observations.

Evidence is provided of issues the authors have seen first-hand where antecedents in the academic environment influences QRPs, which then detrimentally affect research rigour and relevance, integrity and proper contributions to ground-breaking research and knowledge advancement.

This paper is based on personal observations and experiences of the three authors as well as open-ended discussions with others in the academic community. Suggestions are provided for various academic stakeholders to address these issues.

Practical implications are only provided for academics in their roles as authors, journal editors and reviewers.

Encouraging the academic community to eliminate QRPs to improve the rigour, relevance and quality of research will provide more credibility and integrity resulting in better impact and outcomes for society at large.

The value of this paper is in stimulating thinking and debate among academics to return to core issues and values in academia opposed to focusing on narrow university goals focussed on other antecedents of QRPs.

The purpose of this paper is to describe common questionable research practices (QRPs) engaged in by management researchers who use confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) as part of their analysis.

The authors describe seven questionable analytic practices and then review one year of journal articles published in three top-tier management journals to estimate the base rate of these practices.

The authors find that CFA analyses are characterized by a high base rate of QRPs with one practice occurring for over 90 percent of all assessed articles.

The findings of this paper call into question the validity and trustworthiness of results reported in much of the management literature.

The authors provide tentative guidelines of how editors and reviewers might reduce the degree to which the management literature is characterized by these QRPs.

This is the first paper to estimate the base rate of six QRPs relating to the widely used analytic tool referred to as CFA in the management literature.

Bailey et al. (2001) queried accounting researchers concerning admitted fraudulent research practices, their beliefs about the prevalence of such practices among their peers, and their perceptions of the causal factors. They used a randomized response technique that assures anonymity, and it remains the only published study to ask these questions explicitly. Over the past two decades, publication pressures have increased, and accounting academia has experienced a shocking instance of fraud. The current study replicates Bailey et al. (2001) and extends the study by asking new questions about the adequacy of participants’ graduate training, the perceived attitudes and practices of mentors and coauthors, and whether their awareness and concern have evolved. Participants’ comments provide insights about the accounting research environment. Importantly, they indicate a lack of consensus about the legitimacy of research practices.

Scientific research provides a reliable means for developing and accumulating knowledge bases to guide policy and practice. However, evidence from meta-research and large-scale replication projects suggests that the published research base likely reflects bias, which threatens the validity and credibility of research-based recommendations. Moreover, there is limited accessibility to research reports, which limits the impact and application of scientific research. In this chapter, we propose that open-science reforms, which aim to make the research process as open and transparent as possible, can be applied to help address these issues. We describe and discuss four open-science practices – preregistration and Registered Reports, open data and materials, open peer review, and open access and preprints – and propose that they may become one of the next big things in special education research.

Current publication practices in the scholarly (International) Business and Management community are overwhelmingly anti-Popperian, which fundamentally frustrates the production of scientific progress. This is the result of at least five related biases: the verification, novelty, normal science, evidence, and market biases. As a result, no one is really interested in replicating anything. In this essay, the author extensively argues what he believes is wrong, why that is so, and what we might do about this. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

This is an essay, combining a literature review with polemic argumentation.

Only a tiny fraction of published studies involve a replication effort. Moreover, journal authors, editors, reviewers and readers are not interested in seeing nulls and negatives in print. This replication crisis implies that Popper’s critical falsification principle is actually thrown into the scientific community’s dustbin. Behind the façade of all these so-called new discoveries, false positives abound, as do questionable research practices meant to produce all this allegedly cutting-edge and groundbreaking significant findings. If this dismal state of affairs does not change for the good, (International) Business and Management research is ending up in a deadlock.

A radical cultural change in the scientific community, including (International) Business and Management, is badly needed. It should be in the community’s DNA to engage in the quest for the “truth” – nothing more, nothing less. Such a change must involve all stakeholders: scholars, editors, reviewers, and students, but also funding agencies, research institutes, university presidents, faculty deans, department chairs, journalists, policymakers, and publishers. In the words of Ioannidis (2012, p. 647): “Safeguarding scientific principles is not something to be done once and for all. It is a challenge that needs to be met successfully on a daily basis both by single scientists and the whole scientific establishment.”

Publication practices have to change radically. For instance, editorial policies should dispose of their current overly dominant pro-novelty and pro-positives biases, and explicitly encourage the publication of replication studies, including failed and unsuccessful ones that report null and negative findings.

This is an explicit plea to change the way the scientific research community operates, offering a series of concrete recommendations what to do before it is too late.

Value-free science is an ideal that is neither possible nor desirable, especially for social sciences. The subject of social sciences is individuals and groups; hence social, moral, ethical, or political values are inherent and unavoidable in all steps of the scientific process. Further, the authority of science requires the scientist to be responsible experts in ensuring the reliability of knowledge and in assessing the risks in applying the research findings in social policies and practices. The purpose of this essay is to discuss the role of values in business school research.

The author explains the two primary types of values relevant for science: epistemic – norms and standards to ensure good science – and social – criteria not relevant for discovering the truth of knowledge but may influence decisions related to science especially in evaluating the cost of wrongful conclusions from the research evidence. Based on an analysis of published criticisms of business school research and the author’s own analysis, the author describes how business school research is infused with social and political values, undermining the objectivity and quality of science by business scientists.

The author endorses the idea of responsible science – science that recognizes the mutual dependence between science and society, and that aims to satisfy both epistemic and social values. The author offers a modest proposal to encourage transformation of business school research to meet both rigor (valid and reliable knowledge) and relevance (useful for practice) – the hallmark of responsible science.

The ideas in this essay have implications for further work on identifying the relevant epistemic and social values to guide business school research.

The idea of responsible science can potentially transform business school’s research to become both scientifically rigorous and societally relevant.

This chapter considers the current standards that exist for the conduct of research and whether these standards are being met. Issues of scope and terminology are discussed and debated. Also considered are the reasons and benefits to the Academy of Social Sciences and other professional and disciplinary bodies by being involved in developing generic ethics principles in social science research.

This chapter considers the implications of the lack of uniformity, consistency and harmonisation in defining and regulating research integrity across Europe. In view of this, recent initiatives of the Council of Research Ministers and of the European Commission aim to provide a common point of reference in institutional terms and legal terms. However researchers and institutions themselves remain ultimately responsible for detecting, investigating and adjudicating any allegations of scientific misconduct through their established procedures. Therefore, a complementary approach between the Commission’s initiatives and the self-regulatory approach of local/national structures is desirable. A major step towards this direction could be the formulation of a single European-wide definition of research integrity.

This paper explores the different open science policy effects on the knowledge generation process of researchers in basic sciences: biology, chemistry and physics.

This paper uses a qualitative methodology with a content analysis approach. It uses seventeen semi-directed interviews.

The main perceived effect of open science is access to research inputs, with open access, open research data and code reuse as primary sources. Another issue is the increase of collaboration with other colleagues in terms of the ability to collaborate faster and encouraging the exchange of ideas. However, this benefit does not translate to the division of labor in large transnational teams. Time spent on tasks like cleaning up data and code, scooping and other ethical issues are unfavorable aspects noted.

Policymakers could use this study to enhance current open science policies in the countries.

This study analyzes the perspectives of basic sciences researchers from two countries about open science policies. The main conclusion is the fact that open science policies should focus on the research process itself – rather than research outputs – in order to effectively tackle inequalities in science.

The peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/10.1108/OIR-03-2023-0135