No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

In a world where researchers prefer their experiments to have a particular outcome, scientific fraud and research bias are alternative methods to implement such preferences. A critical constraint distinguishes these two methods: biased research is `narrowly replicable' while fraud is non-replicable. Recent proposals to severely punish fraud have typically excluded biased research from their purview. An unintended consequence of such asymmetric sanctions is the substitution of creative uses of technology to bias research outcomes in favor of one's preferences. Importantly, such bias may be substantially more difficult to detect than outright fraud, given current scientific conventions. This article demonstrates, using the simplest of statistical examples, how biased outcomes can derive from seemingly unbiased procedures.