Navigating the review process through the holier than thou

@article{Vancouver2020NavigatingTR,
  title={Navigating the review process through the holier than thou},
  author={Jeffrey B. Vancouver},
  journal={Industrial and Organizational Psychology},
  year={2020},
  volume={13},
  pages={72 - 75}
}
  • J. B. Vancouver
  • Published 1 March 2020
  • Psychology
  • Industrial and Organizational Psychology
As the focal article suggests, reviewing is a complex job that requires sophisticated knowledge and skills. One guiding recommendation included within the integrity competency presented in the focal article (Köhler et al., 2020) mentioned refraining from encouraging questionable research practices like HARKing. HARKing (i.e., hypothesizing after results are known) includes adding, revising, or suppressing hypotheses non-transparently once the results are known (Kerr, 1998). Yet, the… 

References

SHOWING 1-9 OF 9 REFERENCES

Supporting robust, rigorous, and reliable reviewing as the cornerstone of our profession: Introducing a competency framework for peer review

Abstract Peer review is a critical component toward facilitating a robust science in industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology. Peer review exists beyond academic publishing in organizations,

HARKing: Hypothesizing After the Results are Known

  • N. Kerr
  • Psychology
    Personality and social psychology review : an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc
  • 1998
It is conceded that the question of whether HARKing's costs exceed its benefits is a complex one that ought to be addressed through research, open discussion, and debate.

When Does HARKing Hurt? Identifying When Different Types of Undisclosed Post Hoc Hypothesizing Harm Scientific Progress

Hypothesizing after the results are known, or HARKing, occurs when researchers check their research results and then add or remove hypotheses on the basis of those results without acknowledging this

Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference

1. Experiments and Generalized Causal Inference 2. Statistical Conclusion Validity and Internal Validity 3. Construct Validity and External Validity 4. Quasi-Experimental Designs That Either Lack a

Writing an empirical article

Guide to Publishing in Psychology Journals: Writing an Empirical Article

Testing Hypotheses: Prediction and Prejudice

There is an argument that predictions ought to count more than accommodations, because of the risk of “fudging” that accommodations run and predictions avoid.

Cite this article: Vancouver, J.B

  • Industrial and Organizational Psychology
  • 2020

Navigating the review process through the holier than thou