Published Online:

In recent years, the awareness of academic misconduct has increased due to high-profile scandals involving prominent researchers and a spike in journal retractions. But such examples of fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism (FFP) serve to obscure the less flagrant, more subtle cases of possible misconduct: what some have called “questionable research practices” (QRPs). Where FFP is seen as inherently negative, QRPs fall into an ethical “gray zone” between permissible and impermissible. We draw on semistructured interviews with business school scholars to explore the occurrence of QRPs. Prevalent QRPs include playing with numbers, playing with models, and playing with hypotheses. Scholars explain the existence of QRPs in three ways: the inadequate training of researchers, the pressures and incentives to publish in certain outlets, and the demands and expectations of journal editors and reviewers. We argue that a paradox is at work here: To live up to the positivist image of “pure science” that appears in academic journals, researchers may find themselves—ironically—transgressing this very ideal. Ultimately, this challenges the individualistic account of academic misconduct by drawing attention to the role played by institutional actors, such as academic journals, in encouraging forms of QRPs.


  • Academy of Management. 2006. Code of ethics. Retrieved from: Google Scholar
  • Alvesson M., Sköldberg K. 2009. Reflexive methodology: New vistas for qualitative research. London: Sage. Google Scholar
  • Anonymous 2015. The case of the hypothesis that never was: Uncovering the deceptive use of post hoc hypotheses. Journal of Management Inquiry, 24(2): 214–216. Google Scholar
  • Atwater L. E., Mumford M. D., Schriesheim C. A., Yammarino F. J. 2014. Retraction of leadership articles: Causes and prevention. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(5): 1174–1180. Google Scholar
  • Bedeian A. G. 2003. The manuscript review process: The proper roles of authors, referees, and editors. Journal of Management Inquiry, 12(4): 331–338. Google Scholar
  • Bedeian A. G., Taylor S. G., Miller A. N. 2010. Management science on the credibility bubble: Cardinal sins and various misdemeanors. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9(4): 715–725.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Bhattacharjee Y. 2013, April 26. The mind of a con man. The New York Times. Retrieved from: Google Scholar
  • Budd J. 2013. The Stapel case: An object lesson in research integrity and its lapses. Synesis: A Journal of Science Technology, Ethics, and Policy, 4: 47–53. Google Scholar
  • Burrell G., Morgan G. 1979. Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis: Elements of the sociology of corporate life. London: Heinemann. Google Scholar
  • Butler N., Delaney H., Spoelstra S. 2015. Problematizing ‘relevance’ in the business school: The case of leadership studies. British Journal of Management, 26(4): 731–744. Google Scholar
  • Butler N., Spoelstra S. 2012. Your excellency. Organization, 19(6): 891–903. Google Scholar
  • Butler N., Spoelstra S. 2014. The regime of excellence and the erosion of ethos in critical management studies. British Journal of Management, 25(3): 538–550. Google Scholar
  • Butler N., Spoelstra S. 2015. The dark arts of academia—and why journals must do more to tackle the problem. The Conversation, January 7. Retrieved from: Google Scholar
  • Carey B. 2015, May 28. Study on attitudes towards same-sex marriage is retracted by a scientific journal. The New York Times. Retrieved from: Google Scholar
  • Chen X.-P. 2011. Author ethical dilemmas in the research publication process. Management and Organization Review, 7(3): 423–432. Google Scholar
  • Ciulla J. B. 1995. Leadership ethics: Mapping the territory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 5(1): 5–28. Google Scholar
  • Chubin D. E. 1985. Misconduct in research: An issue of science policy and practice. Minerva, 23(2): 175–202. Google Scholar
  • Corbin J., Strauss A. 2008. Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory, (3rd ed.). London: Sage. Google Scholar
  • Davis G. F. 2014. Editorial essay: Why do we still have journals? Administrative Science Quarterly, 59(2): 193–201. Google Scholar
  • De Vries R., Anderson M. S., Martinson B. C. 2006. Normal misbehavior: Scientists talk about the ethics of research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics; JERHRE, 1(1): 43–50. Google Scholar
  • Fanelli D. 2009. How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS One, 4(5): e5738. Google Scholar
  • Fanelli D. 2012. The good, the bad and the grey areas: Towards an international and interdisciplinary definition of scientific misconduct. In Mayer T.Steneck T & N. (Eds.), Promoting research integrity in a global environment: 79–90. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing. Google Scholar
  • Fanelli D. 2013a. Why growing retractions are (mostly) a good sign. PLoS Medicine, 10(12): 1–6. Google Scholar
  • Fanelli D. 2013b. Redefine misconduct as distorted reporting. Nature, 494: 149. Google Scholar
  • Fang F. C., Steen R. G., Casadevall A. 2013. Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(42): 17028–17033. Google Scholar
  • Fiedler K., Schwarz N. 2015. Questionable research practices revisited. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 45–52. Google Scholar
  • Gambino L., Devlin H. 2015. Study of attitudes to same-sex marriage retracted over ‘Fake Data’. The Guardian, May 20. Retrieved from: Google Scholar
  • Harley B., Faems D., Corbett A. 2014. A few bad apples or the tip of an iceberg? Academic misconduct in publishing. Journal of Management Studies, 51(8): 1361–1363. Google Scholar
  • Harvie D., Lightfoot G., Lilley S., Weir K. 2012. What are we to do with feral publishers? Organization, 19(6): 905–914. Google Scholar
  • Harvie D., Lightfoot G., Lilley S., Weir K. 2013. Publisher, be damned! From price gouging to the open road. Prometheus, 31(3): 229–239. Google Scholar
  • Honig B., Bedi A. 2012. The fox in the hen house: A critical examination of plagiarism among members of the Academy of Management. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(1): 101–123.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • John L. K., Loewenstein G., Prelec D. 2012. Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychological Science, 23(5): 524–532. Google Scholar
  • Kepes S., McDaniel M. A. 2013. How trustworthy is the scientific literature in industrial and organizational psychology? Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 6(3): 252–268. Google Scholar
  • Kerr N. L. 1998. HARKing: Hypothesizing after the results are known. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(3): 196–217. Google Scholar
  • Kornfeld D. S. 2012. Research misconduct: The search for a remedy. Academic Medicine, 87(8): 877–882. Google Scholar
  • Lenz H. 2014. Scientific ethics and publishing conduct. Journal of Business Economics, 84(9): 1167–1189. Google Scholar
  • List J. A., Bailey C. D., Euzent P. J., Martin T. L. 2001. Academic economics behaving badly? A survey on three areas of unethical behaviour. Economic Inquiry, 39(1): 162–170. Google Scholar
  • Lynöe N., Jacobsson L., Lundgren E. 1999. Fraud, misconduct or normal science in medical research—An empirical study of demarcation. Journal of Medical Ethics, 25(6): 501–506. Google Scholar
  • Macdonald S. 2015. Emperor’s new clothes: The reinvention of peer review as myth. Journal of Management Inquiry, 24(3): 264–279. Google Scholar
  • Marcus A., Oransky I. 2012. Bring on the Transparency Index. Scientist (Philadelphia, PA), 1 (August). Retrieved from: Google Scholar
  • Marcus A., Oransky I. 2015, May 22. What’s behind big science frauds? The New York Times. Retrieved from: Google Scholar
  • Martin B. R. 2013. Whither research integrity? Plagiarism, self-plagiarism and coercive citation in an age of research assessment. Research Policy, 42(5): 1005–1014. Google Scholar
  • Martinson B. C., Anderson M. S., de Vries R. 2005. Scientists behaving badly. Nature, 435: 737–738. Google Scholar
  • McNutt M. 2015. Editorial expression of concern. Science, 348: 1100. Google Scholar
  • Necker S. 2014. Scientific misbehavior in economics. Research Policy, 43(10): 1747–1759. Google Scholar
  • New York Times Editorial. 2015, June 1. Scientists who cheat. The New York Times. Retrieved from: Google Scholar
  • Panel on Scientific Responsibility and the Conduct of Research. 1992. Responsible science: Ensuring the integrity of the research process, Vol. I, Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Google Scholar
  • Prasad P. 2005. Crafting qualitative research: Working in the postpositivist traditions. NY: M.E. Sharpe. Google Scholar
  • O’Boyle E. H., Banks G. C., Gonzalez-Mulé E. 2017. The chrysalis effect: How ugly initial results metamorphosize into beautiful articles. Journal of Management, 43(2): 376–399. Google Scholar
  • Office of Science and Technology Policy. 2000. Federal research misconduct policy. Federal Register, 65(235): 76260–76264. Google Scholar
  • Pfeffer J. 1977. The ambiguity of leadership. Academy of Management Review, 2(1): 104–112.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Putnam H. 2002. The collapse of the fact/value dichotomy and other essays. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Google Scholar
  • Resnik D. B. 2003. From Baltimore to Bell Labs: Reflections on two decades of debate about scientific misconduct. Accountability in Research, 10(2): 123–135. Google Scholar
  • Resnik D. B., Neal T., Raymond A., Kissling G. E. 2015. Research misconduct definitions adopted by U.S. research institutions. Accountability in Research, 22(1): 14–21. Google Scholar
  • Retraction Watch. 2014a, February 7. Leadership journal to retract five papers from FIU scholar. Retraction Watch. Retrieved from: Google Scholar
  • Retraction Watch. 2014b, June 16. Ulrich Lichtenthaler retraction count rises to 16. Retraction Watch. Retrieved from: Google Scholar
  • Retraction Watch. 2015, December 8. Diederik Stapel now has 58 retractions. Retraction Watch. Retrieved from: Google Scholar
  • Schekman R. 2013, December 9. How journals like Nature, Cell and Science are damaging science. The Guardian. Retrieved from: Google Scholar
  • Schminke M. 2009. Editor’s comments: The better angels of our nature—Ethics and integrity in the publishing process. Academy of Management Review, 34(4): 586–591.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Sovacool B. K. 2008. Exploring scientific misconduct: Isolated individuals, impure institutions, or an inevitable idiom of modern science? Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 5(4): 271–282. Google Scholar
  • Steneck N. 2006. Fostering integrity in research: Definition, current knowledge, and future directions. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12(1): 53–74. Google Scholar
  • Stroebe W., Postmes T., Spears R. 2012. Scientific misconduct and the myth of self-correction in science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6): 670–688. Google Scholar
  • Van Noorden R. 2011. The trouble with retractions. Nature, 478: 26–28. Google Scholar
  • Wenger N. S., Korenman S. G., Berk R., Berry S. 1997. The ethics of scientific research: An analysis of focus groups of scientists and institutional representatives. Journal of Investigative Medicine, 45(6): 371–380. Google Scholar
Academy of Management
  Academy of Management
  555 Pleasantville Road, Suite N200
  Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510-8020, USA
  Phone: +1 (914) 326-1800
  Fax: +1 (914) 326-1900