ArticlePloS one2018
Questionable research practices in ecology and evolution.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 77 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
77 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Substantial heterogeneity in trauma triage tool characteristic operationalization for identification of major trauma: a hybrid systematic review.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2025Pooled it
- Quantifying research waste in ecology.Nature ecology & evolution · 2022Pooled it
- Prevalence of Research Misconduct and Questionable Research Practices: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Science and engineering ethics · 2021Pooled it
- Meta-analysis challenges a textbook example of status signalling and demonstrates publication bias.eLife · 2018Pooled it
- Why researchers cut corners: motivations, pressures, and personality in questionable research practices.Research integrity and peer review · 2026Article
- Ten particularly frequent and consequential questionable research practices in quantitative research: Bias mechanisms, preventive strategies, and a simulation-based framework.Behavior research methods · 2026Article
- What is critical metascience and why is it important?Frontiers in psychology · 2026Review
- Towards a more robust comparative oncology: a Bayesian reanalysis of Peto's paradox and discussion of comparative cancer risk studies in vertebrates.Royal Society open science · 2025Article
- Testing the reproducibility of ecological studies on insect behavior in a multi-laboratory setting identifies opportunities for improving experimental rigor.PLoS biology · 2025Article
- Same data, different analysts: variation in effect sizes due to analytical decisions in ecology and evolutionary biology.BMC biology · 2025Article
- Poor hypotheses and research waste in biology: learning from a theory crisis in psychology.BMC biology · 2025Review
- Differential effects of multiplex and uniplex affiliative relationships on biomarkers of inflammation.PeerJ · 2025Article
- Concerns About Theorizing, Relevance, Generalizability, and Methodology Across Two Crises in Social Psychology.International review of social psychology · 2025Article
- A novel framework for increasing research transparency: Exploring the connection between diversity and innovation.PloS one · 2025Article
- A Systematic Review on the Evolution of Power Analysis Practices in Psychological Research.Psychologica Belgica · 2025Article
- Advances and challenges in ecological connectivity science.Ecology and evolution · 2024Review
- Supporting study registration to reduce research waste.Nature ecology & evolution · 2024Review
- Computationally reproducing results from meta-analyses in ecology and evolutionary biology using shared code and data.PloS one · 2024Article
- Article
- Finding the right power balance: Better study design and collaboration can reduce dependence on statistical power.PLoS biology · 2024Article
17 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We surveyed 807 researchers (494 ecologists and 313 evolutionary biologists) about their use of Questionable Research Practices (QRPs), including cherry picking statistically significant results, p hacking, and hypothesising after the results are known (HARKing). We also asked them to estimate the proportion of their colleagues that use each of these QRPs. Several of the QRPs were prevalent within the ecology and evolution research community. Across the two groups, we found 64% of surveyed researchers reported they had at least once failed to report results because they were not statistically significant (cherry picking); 42% had collected more data after inspecting whether results were statistically significant (a form of p hacking) and 51% had reported an unexpected finding as though it had been hypothesised from the start (HARKing). Such practices have been directly implicated in the low rates of reproducible results uncovered by recent large scale replication studies in psychology and other disciplines. The rates of QRPs found in this study are comparable with the rates seen in psychology, indicating that the reproducibility problems discovered in psychology are also likely to be present in ecology and evolution.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.