What do participants think of our research practices? An examination of behavioural psychology participants' preferences
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 un...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
The Royal Society
2022-04-01
|
| Series: | Royal Society Open Science |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.200048 |
| _version_ | 1818010795927142400 |
|---|---|
| author | Julia G. Bottesini Mijke Rhemtulla Simine Vazire |
| author_facet | Julia G. Bottesini Mijke Rhemtulla Simine Vazire |
| author_sort | Julia G. Bottesini |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | 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. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-14T05:59:00Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-9aaf2281e68c4dc4a86f6753b7d8ca70 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2054-5703 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-14T05:59:00Z |
| publishDate | 2022-04-01 |
| publisher | The Royal Society |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Royal Society Open Science |
| spelling | doaj.art-9aaf2281e68c4dc4a86f6753b7d8ca702022-12-22T02:08:49ZengThe Royal SocietyRoyal Society Open Science2054-57032022-04-019410.1098/rsos.200048What do participants think of our research practices? An examination of behavioural psychology participants' preferencesJulia G. Bottesini0Mijke Rhemtulla1Simine Vazire2Department of Psychology, University of California—Davis, Davis, CA, USADepartment of Psychology, University of California—Davis, Davis, CA, USADepartment of Psychology, University of California—Davis, Davis, CA, USAWhat 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.https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.200048research practicesopen sciencescientific integrityinformed consent |
| spellingShingle | Julia G. Bottesini Mijke Rhemtulla Simine Vazire What do participants think of our research practices? An examination of behavioural psychology participants' preferences Royal Society Open Science research practices open science scientific integrity informed consent |
| title | What do participants think of our research practices? An examination of behavioural psychology participants' preferences |
| title_full | What do participants think of our research practices? An examination of behavioural psychology participants' preferences |
| title_fullStr | What do participants think of our research practices? An examination of behavioural psychology participants' preferences |
| title_full_unstemmed | What do participants think of our research practices? An examination of behavioural psychology participants' preferences |
| title_short | What do participants think of our research practices? An examination of behavioural psychology participants' preferences |
| title_sort | what do participants think of our research practices an examination of behavioural psychology participants preferences |
| topic | research practices open science scientific integrity informed consent |
| url | https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.200048 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT juliagbottesini whatdoparticipantsthinkofourresearchpracticesanexaminationofbehaviouralpsychologyparticipantspreferences AT mijkerhemtulla whatdoparticipantsthinkofourresearchpracticesanexaminationofbehaviouralpsychologyparticipantspreferences AT siminevazire whatdoparticipantsthinkofourresearchpracticesanexaminationofbehaviouralpsychologyparticipantspreferences |