Draft talk:Questionable research practices

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)

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)

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)

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)