In the newly published research article “Is something rotten in the state of Denmark? Cross-national evidence for widespread involvement but not systematic use of questionable research practices across all fields of research” authored by several CFA researchers, questionable research practices (QRP) are assessed. QRPs are defined as ‘ethical shades of grey’ between acceptable and unethical practices that offer considerable latitude for rationalisation and self-deception

The article presents the hitherto most comprehensive study examining QRPs across scholarly fields and knowledge production modes. The paper surveys perception, use, prevalence and predictors of QRPs among researchers in Denmark and in the UK, USA, Croatia and Austria. 9 out of 10 respondents admitted using at least one QRP. On average, prevalence rates were roughly three times lower compared to selfreported use.

Findings indicated that the perceived social acceptability of QRPs influenced self-report patterns. Results suggest that most researchers use different types of QRPs within a restricted time period. The prevalence estimates, however, do not suggest outright systematic use of specific QRPs.

Perceived pressure was the strongest systemic predictor for prevalence. Conversely, more local attention to research cultures and academic age was negatively related to prevalence. Finally, the personality traits conscientiousness and, to a lesser degree, agreeableness were also inversely associated with self-reported prevalence.

Findings suggest that explanations for engagement with QRPs are not only attributable to systemic factors, as hitherto suggested, but a complicated mixture of experience, systemic and individual factors, and motivated reasoning.

Read more about corresponding author Jesper Wiborg Schneider’s comments on the article here.

The article’s findings are further discussed in the following article in Weekendavisen: Små synder.