Improving educative quality in higher education by promoting good research practices

Article Sidebar

PDF (Español (España))
Published: Dec 30, 2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.17060/ijodaep.2022.n2.v1.2444
Keywords:
higher education academic integrity misinformation university science

Main Article Content

Ana María Ruiz Ruano
Universidad de Granada, Departamento de Psicología Evolutiva y de la Educación
Jorge López Puga
Universidad de Granada, Departamento de Personalidad, Evaluación y Tratamiento Psicológico

Abstract

Scientific community witness, from time, episodes of academic and scientific fraud impacting on mass media. Fortunately, those type of events are rare, but they have a strong effect upon public opinion. Consequently, higher education and university academic activity is at risk of being perceived negatively. Scientific credibility is also threatened which favours misinformation and therise of populism. Theterm “questionableresearch practices” has even been coined to refer to some research activities suspected to be incongruent with ethical standards. Given that higher education is aimed at promoting, encouraging, and supporting research quality practices, our objective in this paper is twofold. Firstly, we identify those questionable research practices appearing with more frequency in higher education. Secondly, we propose a set of measures minimise, avoid, or eradicate those questionable research practises risking scientific integrity. We hope our suggestions are welcomed by scientific community to open discussions in order to improve and optimise the quality of training in higher education. 

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Ruiz Ruano, A. M., & López Puga, J. (2022). Improving educative quality in higher education by promoting good research practices. International Journal of Developmental and Educational Psychology. Revista INFAD De Psicología., 1(2), 75–82. https://doi.org/10.17060/ijodaep.2022.n2.v1.2444
Issue
Vol. 1 No. 2 (2022): ABOUT DEVELOPMENT AND LIFE
Section
Articles
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
 
a. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format under the following terms:

 

Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.

NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes.

NoDerivatives — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you may not distribute the modified material.

 
b. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
 
c. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
 
The authors are responsible to obtain the appropriate permissions to reproduce material (text, images or graphics) from other publications and to quote their origin correctly.
 
Author Biographies

Ana María Ruiz Ruano, Universidad de Granada, Departamento de Psicología Evolutiva y de la Educación

Universidad de Granada, Departamento de Psicología Evolutiva y de la Educación

Jorge López Puga, Universidad de Granada, Departamento de Personalidad, Evaluación y Tratamiento Psicológico

Universidad de Granada, Departamento de Personalidad, Evaluación y Tratamiento Psicológico

References

Abbott, A. (2012). Plagiarism charge for Romanian minister. Nature, 485, 289. https://doi.org/10.1038/485289a

American Psychological Association (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6 ed.). American Psychological Association.

Antonakis, J. (2017). On doing better science: From thrill of Discovery to policy implications. The Leadership Quarterly, 28 , 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.01.006

Bakan, D. (1966). The test of significance in psychological research. Psychological Bulletin, 66, 423-437.

Ball, P.,y Maxmen, A. (2020). Theepic battleagainstcoronavirus misinformation and conspiracytheories. Nature, 581, 371–374. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-01452-z

Bates, J. A. (1991). Teaching hypothesis testing by debunking a demostration of telepathy. Teaching of Psychology, 18(2), 94-97.

Biagioli, M. (2016). Watch out for cheats in citation game. Nature, 535, 201. https://doi.org/10.1038/535201a

Brennan, P. (2008). Duplication: most cases on database are innocent. Nature, 452, 29. https://doi.org/10.1038/452029d

Callaway, E. (2011). Report finds massive fraud at Dutch universities. Nature, 479, 15. https://doi.org/10.1038/479015a

Callway, E. (2016). Beat it, impact factor! Publishing elite turns against controversial metric. Nature, 535, 210-211. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2016.20224

Casadevall, A., y Fang, F. C. (2012). Reforming science: methodological and cultural reforms. Infection and Immunity, 80, 891-896. https://doi.org/10.1128/IAI.06183-11

Chaddah, P. (2014). Not all plagiarism requires a retraction. Nature, 511, 127. https://doi.org/10.1038/511127a

Corbyn, Z. (2012). Misconduct Misconduct is the main cause of life-sciences retractions. Nature, 490, 21. https://doi.org/10.1038/490021a

Crocker, J. (2011). The road to fraud starts with a single step. Nature, 479, 151. https://doi.org/10.1038/479151a

David, D. (2008). Duplication spreads the word to a wider audience. Nature, 452, 29. https://doi.org/10.1038/452029b

Else, H. (2021). Swedish research misconduct agency swamped with cases in first year. Nature, 597, 461. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-02451-4

Errami, M., y Garner, H. (2008). A tale of two citations. Nature, 451, 397-399. https://doi.org/10.1038/451397a

Fanelli, D. (2013). Redefine misconduct as distorted reporting. Nature, 494, 149. https://doi.org/10.1038/494149a

Fenner, M. (2008). Duplication: stop favouring applicant with longest list. Nature, 452, 29. https://doi.org/10.1038/452029a

Galton, D. J. (2012). Did Mendel falsify his data? QJM: An International Journal of Medicine, 105(2), 215-216. https://doi.org/10.1093/qjmed/hcr195

Halsey, L. G., Currant-Everett, D., Vowler, S. L., y Drummond, G. B. (2015). The fickled P value generates irreproducible results. Nature Methods, 12, 179-185. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.3288

Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., Rijcke, S., y Rafols, I. (2015). Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature, 520, 429–431. https://doi.org/10.1038/520429a

Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine, 2(8), 696–701. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

Ladyman, J., Lambert, J., y Weisner, K. (2013). What is a complex system? European Journal of Philosophy of Science, 3, 33-67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-012-0056-8

León, O. G. (1996). Cómo entusiasmar a 100 estudiantes en la primera clase de metodología e introducir al mismo tiempo 22 conceptos fundamentales de la materia. Psicothema, 8, 221-226.

Macilwain, C. (2012). The time is right to confront misconduct. Nature, 488, 7. https://doi.org/10.1038/488007a

Mejlgaard, N., Bouter, L. M., Gaskell, G., Kavouras, P., Allum, N., Bendtsen, A. K., ... y Veltri, G. A. (2020). Research integrity: nine ways to move from talk to walk. Nature, 586, 358-360. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-02847-8

Morató, Y. (2012). Una reflexión necesaria sobre el plagio en el EEES. UPO INNOVA: Revista de Innovación Docente, 1, 361-368.

Munafò, M., Nosek, B. A., Bishop, D. V. M., Button, K. S., Chambers, C. D., Percie du Sert, N., ..., Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2017). A manifesto for reproducible science. Nature Human Behavior, 1, Artículo Número 21.https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-016-0021

Neaves, W. (2012). The roots of research misconduct. Nature, 488, 121–122. https://doi.org/10.1038/nj7409-121a

Nuzzo, R. (2014). Scientific method: statistical errors. Nature, 506, 150-152. https://doi.org/10.1038/506150a

Orlitzky, M. (2012). How can significance tests be deinstitutionalized? Organizational Research Methods, 5, 199-228. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428111428356

Pagano, R. R. (1999). Estadística para las ciencias del comportamiento (5ª ed.). Thomson.

Pappas, S. (2021). Leading the charge to address research misconduct. Monitor Psychology, 52, 71-75.

Pascual, J., Frías, M. D., y García, J. F. (2000). El procedimiento de significación estadística (NHST): su trayectoria y actualidad. Revista de Historia de la Psicología, 21(1), 9-26.

Puga, J. L. (2014). Analyzing and reducing plagiarism at university. European Journal of Education and Psychology, 7, 131-140. https://doi.org/10.30552/ejep.v7i2.102

Puga, J. L. (2014). Using playing cards to differentiate probability interpretations. Teaching Statistics, 36, 76-79. https://doi.org/10.1111/test.12055

Ruiz-Ruano, A. M., Palazón Pérez de los Cobos, A., y Puga, J. L. (2018). Six manipulative tasks to improve attitudes towards statistics at university. En L. Gómez, A. López, e I. Candel (Eds.), ICERI2018 Proceedings (pp. 8502-8508). IATED Academy. https://doi.org/10.21125/iceri.2018.0555

Ruiz-Ruano, A. M., y Puga, J. L. (2020). Cómo mejorar la comunicación de estadísticos inferenciales en ciencias de la salud. Revista Española de Comunicación en Salud, 11(1), 139-145. https://doi.org/10.20318/recs.2020.5173

Smaldino, P. E., y McElreath, R. (2016). The natural selection of bad science. Royal Society Open Science, 3, 160384. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.160384

Stern, H. S. (2016). A test by any other name: p-values, Bayes Factors and statistical inference. Multivariate Behaviour Research, 51, 23-39. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2015.1099032

Sureda, J., Comas, R., y Morey, M. (2009). Las causas del plagio académico entre el alumnado universitario según el profesorado. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación, 50, 197-2020. https://doi.org/10.35362/rie500669

Van Noorden, R. (2013). Brazilian citation scheme outed. Nature, 500, 510–511. https://doi.org/10.1038/500510a

Wasserstein, R. L., y Lazar, N. A. (2016). The ASA’s statement on p-values: Context, process, and purpose. The American Statistician, 70, 129-133. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2016.1154108

Werner, R. (2015). The focus on bibliometrics makes papers less useful. Nature, 517, 245. https://doi.org/10.1038/517245a

Wicherts, J. M. (2011). Psychology must learn a lesson from fraud case. Nature, 480, 7. https://doi.org/10.1038/480007a

Wouters, P., Sugimoto, C. R., Larivière, V., McVeigh, M. E., Pulverer, B., de Rijcke, S., y Waltman, L. (2019). Rethinking impact factors: better ways to judge a journal. Nature, 569, 621-623. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-01643-3

Yong, E. (2012). Replication studies: bad copy. Nature, 485, 298-300. https://doi.org/10.1038/485298a