Crossing the Red Line? Empirical Evidence and Useful Recommendations on Questionable Research Practices among Business Scholars

Hengky Latan (), Charbel Jose Chiappetta Jabbour (), Ana Beatriz Lopes de Sousa Jabbour () and Murad Ali ()
Additional contact information
Hengky Latan: HLC Consulting
Charbel Jose Chiappetta Jabbour: EMLYON Business School
Ana Beatriz Lopes de Sousa Jabbour: EM Normandie Business School, Metis Lab
Murad Ali: Newcastle Business School

Journal of Business Ethics, 2023, vol. 184, issue 3, No 1, 549-569

Abstract: Abstract Academic leaders in management from all over the world—including recent calls by the Academy of Management Shaw (Academy of Management Journal 60(3): 819–822, 2017)—have urged further research into the extent and use of questionable research practices (QRPs). In order to provide empirical evidence on the topic of QRPs, this work presents two linked studies. Study 1 determines the level of use of QRPs based on self-admission rates and estimated prevalence among business scholars in Indonesia. It was determined that if the level of QRP use identified in Study 1 was quite high, Study 2 would be conducted to follow-up on this result, and this was indeed the case. Study 2 examines the factors that encourage and discourage the use of QRPs in the sample analyzed. The main research findings are as follows: (a) in Study 1, we found the self-admission rates and estimated prevalence of business scholars’ involvement in QRPs to be quite high when compared with studies conducted in other countries and (b) in Study 2, we found pressure for publication from universities, fear of rejection of manuscripts, meeting the expectations of reviewers, and available rewards to be the main reasons for the use of QRPs in Indonesia, whereas (c) formal sanctions and prevention efforts are factors that discourage QRPs. Recommendations for stakeholders (in this case, reviewers, editors, funders, supervisors, chancellors and others) are also provided in order to reduce the use of QRPs.

Keywords: Questionable research practices; Ethics in research; Estimated prevalence; Justifications; Formal sanctions; Prevention efforts; Perceived behavioral control (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2023
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10551-021-04961-7 Abstract (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

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:kap:jbuset:v:184:y:2023:i:3:d:10.1007_s10551-021-04961-7

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer. ... cs/journal/10551/PS2

DOI: 10.1007/s10551-021-04961-7

Access Statistics for this article

Journal of Business Ethics is currently edited by Michelle Greenwood and R. Edward Freeman

More articles in Journal of Business Ethics from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().