Overcoming the “Ostrich Effect”: A Narrative Review on the Incentives and Consequences of Questionable Research Practices in Kinesiology

Q2 Health Professions
N. Tiller, P. Ekkekakis
{"title":"Overcoming the “Ostrich Effect”: A Narrative Review on the Incentives and Consequences of Questionable Research Practices in Kinesiology","authors":"N. Tiller, P. Ekkekakis","doi":"10.1123/kr.2022-0039","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Increasing transparency and openness in science is an ongoing endeavor, one that has stimulated self-reflection and reform in many fields. However, kinesiology and its related disciplines are among those exhibiting an “ostrich effect” and a reluctance to acknowledge their methodological shortcomings. Notwithstanding several high-profile cases of scientific misconduct, scholars in the field are frequently engaged in questionable research practices (QRPs) such as biased experimental designs, inappropriate statistics, and dishonest/inexplicit reporting. To advance their careers, researchers are also “gaming the system” by manipulating citation metrics and publishing in predatory and/or pay-to-publish journals that lack robust peer review. The consequences of QRPs in the discipline may be profound: from increasing the false positivity rate to eroding public trust in the very institutions tasked with informing public health policy. But what are the incentives underpinning misconduct and QRPs? And what are the solutions? This narrative review is a consciousness raiser that explores (a) the manifestations of QRPs in kinesiology; (b) the excessive publication pressures, funding pressures, and performance incentives that are likely responsible; and (c) possible solutions for reform.","PeriodicalId":37468,"journal":{"name":"Kinesiology Review","volume":"5 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Kinesiology Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1123/kr.2022-0039","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Health Professions","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Increasing transparency and openness in science is an ongoing endeavor, one that has stimulated self-reflection and reform in many fields. However, kinesiology and its related disciplines are among those exhibiting an “ostrich effect” and a reluctance to acknowledge their methodological shortcomings. Notwithstanding several high-profile cases of scientific misconduct, scholars in the field are frequently engaged in questionable research practices (QRPs) such as biased experimental designs, inappropriate statistics, and dishonest/inexplicit reporting. To advance their careers, researchers are also “gaming the system” by manipulating citation metrics and publishing in predatory and/or pay-to-publish journals that lack robust peer review. The consequences of QRPs in the discipline may be profound: from increasing the false positivity rate to eroding public trust in the very institutions tasked with informing public health policy. But what are the incentives underpinning misconduct and QRPs? And what are the solutions? This narrative review is a consciousness raiser that explores (a) the manifestations of QRPs in kinesiology; (b) the excessive publication pressures, funding pressures, and performance incentives that are likely responsible; and (c) possible solutions for reform.
克服“鸵鸟效应”:对运动机能学中可疑研究实践的动机和后果的述评
提高科学的透明度和开放性是一项持续的努力,它激发了许多领域的自我反思和改革。然而,运动机能学及其相关学科是那些表现出“鸵鸟效应”的学科之一,不愿意承认他们的方法缺陷。尽管有一些引人注目的科学不端行为案例,但该领域的学者经常从事有问题的研究实践(qrp),如有偏见的实验设计,不适当的统计数据和不诚实/不明确的报告。为了推进他们的职业生涯,研究人员还通过操纵引用指标和在缺乏强有力同行评议的掠夺性和/或付费出版期刊上发表文章来“玩弄系统”。qrp对该学科的影响可能是深远的:从增加假阳性率到侵蚀公众对负责告知公共卫生政策的机构的信任。但是,不当行为和qrp背后的动机是什么?解是什么?这篇叙述性综述是一个意识提升者,探讨(a) qrp在运动机能学中的表现;(b)过度的出版压力、资金压力和绩效激励可能是罪魁祸首;(三)可能的改革方案。
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
Kinesiology Review
Kinesiology Review Health Professions-Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
16
期刊介绍: Kinesiology Review (KR) is the official journal of the National Academy of Kinesiology and the American Kinesiology Association. KR provides a forum for discussion and analysis of kinesiology research and its applications. Although many journals publish reviews on select topics, KR stands alone in its focus on scholarly reviews from all subdisciplines of kinesiology. This rigorously peer-reviewed journal serves the interests of those in all areas of study related to kinesiology—sport and exercise psychology, motor behavior, exercise physiology, biomechanics, sports medicine, sport history, sport philosophy, sport sociology, physical education pedagogy, and sport management. The insightful review articles in KR address important issues and emerging research in all areas of kinesiology. KR also publishes theoretical papers, critical analyses of significant issues and scientific methods, and position papers pertinent to kinesiology. One issue each year contains papers based on scholarly presentations of the annual meeting of the National Academy of Kinesiology, which provides commentaries on timely issues in the field, and another issue contains papers reflecting the topic of the annual leadership workshop of the American Kinesiology Association. Articles featured in KR have touched on recovering from spinal cord injuries, the role of physical activity in successful aging, diversity in kinesiology, and the history of organized youth sport in the United States. Future articles will continue to explore new research in kinesiology and other topics of importance to the field. KR’s broad coverage makes it a perfect source of information for faculty, researchers, and professionals who want to stay up to date on emerging research across the subdisciplines, as well as students who are starting their exploration of this fascinating field of study.
×
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