Questionable research practices violate the American Psychological Association's Code of Ethics.

IF 3.1 Q2 PSYCHIATRY
Joshua D Miller, Nathaniel L Phillips, Donald R Lynam
{"title":"Questionable research practices violate the American Psychological Association's Code of Ethics.","authors":"Joshua D Miller, Nathaniel L Phillips, Donald R Lynam","doi":"10.1037/abn0000974","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In this viewpoint article, the authors assert that psychology is in the midst of a \"replication crisis\" due to factors such as low power, p-hacking, publication bias, and hypothesizing after the results are known (HARKing). Individually, these practices have been decried for decades, but only in the last 15 years has the corrosive effect of these practices been fully appreciated. The authors contend that these practices are more than \"questionable\" and constitute unethical research practices according to the American Psychological Association's (2017) Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. The public deserves the ethical and honest practice of clinical science described by APA's ethics codes. Although these issues cut across all subdisciplines of psychology, they take on special importance within clinical psychology where research on assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of mental health problems have meaningful real-world implications. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":73914,"journal":{"name":"Journal of psychopathology and clinical science","volume":"134 2","pages":"113-114"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of psychopathology and clinical science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000974","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In this viewpoint article, the authors assert that psychology is in the midst of a "replication crisis" due to factors such as low power, p-hacking, publication bias, and hypothesizing after the results are known (HARKing). Individually, these practices have been decried for decades, but only in the last 15 years has the corrosive effect of these practices been fully appreciated. The authors contend that these practices are more than "questionable" and constitute unethical research practices according to the American Psychological Association's (2017) Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. The public deserves the ethical and honest practice of clinical science described by APA's ethics codes. Although these issues cut across all subdisciplines of psychology, they take on special importance within clinical psychology where research on assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of mental health problems have meaningful real-world implications. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

有问题的研究行为违反了美国心理协会的道德准则。
在这篇观点文章中,作者断言,由于低权力、p-hacking、发表偏见和在结果已知后假设等因素,心理学正处于“复制危机”之中(HARKing)。单独来看,这些做法几十年来一直受到谴责,但直到最近15年,人们才充分认识到这些做法的腐蚀作用。作者认为,根据美国心理协会(2017)《心理学家道德原则和行为准则》,这些做法不仅仅是“有问题”,而且构成了不道德的研究行为。公众理应得到美国心理学会伦理准则所描述的合乎伦理和诚实的临床科学实践。尽管这些问题跨越了心理学的所有分支学科,但它们在临床心理学中具有特殊的重要性,因为临床心理学对心理健康问题的评估、诊断和治疗的研究具有重要的现实意义。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信