The Misuse of Statistics: Concepts, Tools, and a Research Agenda

By writing scientific articles we communicate science among colleagues and peers. By doing this, it is our responsibility to adhere to some basic principles like transparency and accuracy. Authors, journal editors and reviewers need to be concerned about the quality of the work submitted for publication and ensure that only studies which have been designed, conducted and reported in a transparent way, honestly and without any deviation from the truth get to be published. Any such trend or deviation from the truth in data collection, analysis, interpretation and publication is called bias. Bias in research can occur either intentionally or unintentionally. Bias causes false conclusions and is potentially misleading. Therefore, it is immoral and unethical to conduct biased research. Every scientist should thus be aware of all potential sources of bias and undertake all possible actions to reduce or minimize the deviation from the truth. This article describes some basic issues related to bias in research.

show abstract

“…Bias can occur either intentionally or unintentionally (1). Intention to introduce bias into someone’s research is immoral.…”

Section: Definition Of Biasmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bias in research

Šimundić¹

2013

Biochem Med

137

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A pattern of unsound statistical analysis misused to lend weight to misrepresentation of facts (Gardenier & Resnik, 2002).…”

Section: Misuse Of Statisticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The 4 I’s of Entrepreneurship: A Study of the Entrepreneurial Perspectives behind A Failed Large-Scale Distributed Research Infrastructure

Larsson

2018

Entrepreneurship Research Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This case study investigates whether collective entrepreneurial team cognition remains consistent throughout all stage processes when setting up a large-scale, distributed research infrastructure. A new “action phase model” has been devised, known as the “4 I’s of entrepreneurship”, with each “I” elucidating the entrepreneurial rationale behind various stages of the creation process: Intention, Initiation, Implementation and Introspection. The case investigated was BBMRI.se (BioBanking and Molecular Resource Infrastructure in Sweden) – a Swedish large-scale distributed research infrastructure aimed at harmonizing biobanking standards. Managers and key personnel involved in founding and/or operating the organization were interviewed. The results showed there was agreement regarding the need for the research infrastructure, while there were disagreeing perceptions of what the organization should be doing and regarding the difficulties it had faced. These developments would ultimately lead to BBMRI.se’s demise. The homogenous mindset would begin to dissipate once the Initiation stage was reached and worsened throughout the Implementation stage. The results indicate that BBMRI.se’s managerial structure, personal ambitions and lack of transparency and communication were key contributors to its ultimate failure. The implications highlight the risk of fragmented motivations as collective entrepreneurs turn their ambition into reality, if given too much autonomy.

show abstract

“…78 The impact of these and other inaccuracies is compounded by the fact that researchers also fail to confirm the authenticity of the publications they are using, as evidenced by the fact that articles with flawed information continue to be cited long after they are retracted. 92,93 Bias. Studies have shown that significant numbers of researchers improperly or inadequately summarize findings and conclusions in abstracts.…”

Section: Inaccuracymentioning

confidence: 99%

Fostering integrity in research: Definitions, current knowledge, and future directions

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the last 25 years, a small but growing body of research on research behavior has slowly provided a more complete and critical understanding of research practices, particularly in the biomedical and behavioral sciences. The results of this research suggest that some earlier assumptions about irresponsible conduct are not reliable, leading to the conclusion that there is a need to change the way we think about and regulate research behavior. This paper begins with suggestions for more precise definitions of the terms "responsible conduct of research," "research ethics," and "research integrity." It then summarizes the findings presented in some of the more important studies of research behavior, looking first at levels of occurrence and then impact. Based on this summary, the paper concludes with general observations about priorities and recommendations for steps to improve the effectiveness of efforts to respond to misconduct and foster higher standards for integrity in research.Researchers should practice research responsibly. Unfortunately, some do not. For the past 25 years, following public reports of major cases of irresponsible conduct, policy makers and the research community have been debating how to label, study, and respond to research behaviors that fall short of responsible conduct.The consensus that emerged from these debates broadly separated research behaviors in to three categories: deliberate misconduct, commonly defined as fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism (FFP); questionable research practices (QRP);

show abstract

The Misuse of Statistics: Concepts, Tools, and a Research Agenda

Cited by 62 publications

References 9 publications

Bias in research

Bias in research

The 4 I’s of Entrepreneurship: A Study of the Entrepreneurial Perspectives behind A Failed Large-Scale Distributed Research Infrastructure

Fostering integrity in research: Definitions, current knowledge, and future directions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About