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).

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