Cover not available

Article published In: Questionable Research Practices in Applied Linguistics
Edited by Luke Plonsky
[Journal of Second Language Studies 8:2] 2025
► pp. 219–243

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

Investigating researcher perceptions of Questionable Research Practices

 | Indiana State University, United States
 | University of South Florida, United States
 | Northern Arizona University, United States
 | Northern Arizona University, United States
 | Uppsala University, Sweden
Published online: 28 July 2025
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/jsls.00048.ste
Abstract
In quantitative applied linguistics research, the ethical grey zone between responsible conduct of research and blatant misconduct covers numerous researcher practices that may be more or less ethical depending on situational variables (e.g., context, researcher intent). Known as questionable research practices (QRPs), these actions coincide with the day-to-day decision points that occur throughout the research process. Building on Larsson, T., Plonsky, L., Sterling, S., Kytö, M., Yaw, K., & Wood, M. (2023). On the frequency, prevalence, and perceived severity of questionable research practices. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 2(3), 100064. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar investigation of the prevalence and severity of 58 field-specific QRPs among researchers in the quantitative humanities, the current study presents a thematic analysis of the 2,261 qualitative comments left by 167 of these survey respondents. Five overarching themes were identified in these comments: Roughly half of the responses were justifications of QRP actions, while others highlighted the contextually-dependent nature of QRPs and pointed to potential ambiguity in the wording of these items. These findings offer implications for how we as a field discuss QRPs, as well as researcher training practices.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction and literature review
    • 1.1Situating the current study
    • 1.2Research theme
  • 2.Methods
    • 2.1Participants
    • 2.2Instrument
    • 2.3Procedures
    • 2.4Analysis
  • 3.Results and discussion
    • 3.1Themes
      • 3.1.1Theme 1: Justification of their action
      • 3.1.2Theme 2: Comments about the QRP itself
      • 3.1.3Theme 3: QRP problems
      • 3.1.4Theme 4: Survey issue
  • 4.Implications, future directions, and conclusions
  • References
References (33)
References
Agnoli, F., Wicherts, J. M., Veldkamp, C. L., Albiero, P., & Cubelli, R. (2017). Questionable research practices among Italian research psychologists. PloS ONE, 12(3), e0172792. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Al-Marzouki, S., Roberts, I., Marshall, T., & Evans, S. (2005). The effect of scientific misconduct on the results of clinical trials: A Delphi survey. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 26(3), 331–337. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Antes, A. L. (2014). A systematic approach to instruction in research ethics. Accountability in Research, 21(1), 50–67. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Antes, A. L., Murphy, S. T., Waples, E. P., Mumford, M. D., Brown, R. P., Connelly, S., & Devenport, L. D. (2009). A meta-analysis of ethics instruction effectiveness in the sciences. Ethics & Behavior, 19(5), 379–402. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bottesini, J. G., Rhemtulla, M., & Vazire, S. (2022). What do participants think of our research practices? An examination of behavioural psychology participants’ preferences. Royal Society Open Science, 9(4), 200048. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chin, J. M., Pickett, J. T., Vazire, S., & Holcombe, A. O. (2023). Questionable research practices and open science in quantitative criminology. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 391, 21–51. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fiedler, K., & Schwarz, N. (2016). Questionable research practices revisited. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7(1), 45–52. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Guillemin, M., & Gillam, L. (2004). Ethics, reflexivity, and “ethically important moments” in research. Qualitative Inquiry, 10(2), 261–280. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haggerty, K. D. (2004). Ethics creep: Governing social science research in the name of ethics. Qualitative Sociology, 271, 391–414. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hall, J., & Martin, B. R. (2019). Towards a taxonomy of research misconduct: The case of business school research. Research Policy, 481, 414–427. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research. (2021). The Carnegie Classifications of Institutions of Higher Education, 2021 Edition Bloomington, IN. Available at [URL]
Isbell, D. R., Brown, D., Chen, M., Derrick, D. J., Ghanem, R., Arvizu, M. N. G., Schnur, E., Zhang, M., & Plonsky, L. (2022). Misconduct and questionable research practices: The ethics of quantitative data handling and reporting in applied linguistics. The Modern Language Journal, 106(1), 172–195. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Jordan, S. R. (2013). Conceptual clarification and the task of improving research on academic ethics. Journal of Academic Ethics, 111, 243–256. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kumar, M. N. (2008). A review of the types of scientific misconduct in biomedical research. Journal of Academic Ethics, 61, 211–228. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Larsson, T., Plonsky, L., Sterling, S., Kytö, M., Yaw, K., & Wood, M. (2023). On the frequency, prevalence, and perceived severity of questionable research practices. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 2(3), 100064. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Makel, M. C., Hodges, J., Cook, B. G. , & Plucker, J. A. (2021). Both questionable and open research practices are prevalent in education research. Educational Researcher, 50(8), 493–504. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Msoroka, M. S., & Amundsen, D. (2018). One size fits not quite all: Universal research ethics with diversity. Research Ethics, 14(3), 1–17. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
National Endowment for the Humanities. (2022). What are the humanities? January 19 [URL]
National Humanities Center. (2022). What are the humanities? January 19 Humanities in action [URL]
Plonsky, L., Larsson, T., Sterling, S., Kytö, M., Yaw, K., & Wood, M. (2024). A taxonomy of questionable research practices in quantitative humanities. In De Costa, P. I., Rabie-Ahmed, A., & Cinaglia, C. (Eds.), Ethical issues in applied linguistics scholarship (pp. 10–27). John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Plonsky, L., Brown, D., Chen, M., Ghanem, R., Arvizu, M. N. G., Isbell, D. R. , & Zhang, M. (2024). “Significance sells”: Applied linguists’ views on questionable research practices. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 31(11), 100099. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sato, M., Loewen, S., & Pastushenkov, D. (2022). ‘Who is my research for?’: Researcher perceptions of the research-practice relationship. Applied Linguistics, 43(4), 625–652. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Steneck, N. H. (2007). Introduction to the Responsible Conduct of Research: (638422011-001) [dataset]. American Psychological Association. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sterling, S., Plonsky, L., Larsson, T., Kytö, M., & Yaw, K. (2023). Introducing and illustrating the Delphi method for applied linguistics research. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 2(1), 100040. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Swift, J. K., Christopherson, C. D., Bird, M. O., Zöld, A., & Goode, J. (2022). Questionable research practices among faculty and students in APA-accredited clinical and counseling psychology doctoral programs. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 16(3), 299–305. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tauginienė, L., Gaižauskaitė, I., Razi, S., Glendinning, I., Sivasubramaniam, S., Marino, F., Cosentino, M., Anohina-Naumeca, A., & Kravjar, J. (2019). Enhancing the taxonomies relating to academic integrity and misconduct. Journal of Academic Ethics, 171, 345–361. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van den Hoonaard, W. C. (2011). The seduction of ethics: Transforming the social sciences. University of Toronto Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wood, M., Larsson, T., Plonsky, L., Sterling, S., Kytö, M., & Yaw, K. (2024a). Addressing questionable research practices in applied linguistics: A practical guide. Applied Linguistics Press. [URL]
Wood, M., Sterling, S., Larsson, T., Plonsky, L., Kytö, M., & Yaw, K. (2024b). Researchers training researchers: Ethics training in quantitative applied linguistics. TESOL Quarterly, tesq.3323. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yaw, K., Plonsky, L., Larsson, T., Sterling, S., & Kytö, M. (2023). Research ethics in applied linguistics. Language Teaching, 56(4), 478–494. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zhang, G. (2024). Emerging engineering scholars’ stance in citations. Journal of Second Language Studies, 7(2), 347–380. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Sterling, Scott, Merja Kytö, Luke Plonsky, Kate Yaw & Tove Larsson
2025. Sampling through the lens of QRPs. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics 4:3 ► pp. 100280 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 9 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue