Open AccessWhat do participants think of our research practices? An examination of behavioural psychology participants' preferences
Author(s) -
Julia G. Bottesini,
Mijke Rhemtulla,
Simine Vazire
Publication year - 2022
Publication title -
royal society open science
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.84
H-Index - 51
ISSN - 2054-5703
DOI - 10.1098/rsos.200048
Subject(s) - transparency (behavior) , open science , psychology , ambiguity , hacker , publishing , set (abstract data type) , psychological research , data sharing , applied psychology , social psychology , alternative medicine , medicine , computer science , political science , physics , computer security , pathology , astronomy , law , programming language , operating system
What research practices should be considered acceptable? Historically, scientists have set the standards for what constitutes acceptable research practices. However, there is value in considering non-scientists’ perspectives, including research participants'. 1873 participants from MTurk and university subject pools were surveyed after their participation in one of eight minimal-risk studies. We asked participants how they would feel if (mostly) common research practices were applied to their data:p -hacking/cherry-picking results, selective reporting of studies, Hypothesizing After Results are Known (HARKing), committing fraud, conducting direct replications, sharing data, sharing methods, and open access publishing. An overwhelming majority of psychology research participants think questionable research practices (e.g.p -hacking, HARKing) are unacceptable (68.3–81.3%), and were supportive of practices to increase transparency and replicability (71.4–80.1%). A surprising number of participants expressed positive or neutral views toward scientific fraud (18.7%), raising concerns about data quality. We grapple with this concern and interpret our results in light of the limitations of our study. Despite the ambiguity in our results, we argue that there is evidence (from our study and others’) that researchers may be violating participants' expectations and should be transparent with participants about how their data will be used.