What Crisis? Taking Stock of Management Researchers' Experiences with and Views of Scholarly Misconduct

Gary Hoover and Christian Hopp

No 6611, CESifo Working Paper Series from CESifo

Abstract: This research presents the results of a survey regarding scientific misconduct elicited from a sample of 1,215 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 contradictory results, dropping of unsupported hypotheses). Despite these findings, respondents put a fair deal of trust in the replicability and robustness of findings being published. A sizeable majority of editors and authors eschew open data policies but sees value in replication studies to ensure credibility in empirical research.

Keywords: scientific misconduct; data fabrication; data misrepresentation; ethics (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: A11 K30 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2017
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-sog
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.cesifo.org/DocDL/cesifo1_wp6611.pdf (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:ces:ceswps:_6611

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in CESifo Working Paper Series from CESifo Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Klaus Wohlrabe ().