Misconduct and Questionable Research Practices: The Ethics of Quantitative Data Handling and Reporting in Applied Linguistics

2022/02/15 by Daniel R. Isbell, DANIEL R. ISBELL, Dan Brown +14 · 1 voice · 94 citations
Computer Science · Engineering · Medicine · Psychology · Social Sciences · #Academic integrity and plagiarism #Alternative medicine #Computer science #Data collection #Engineering #Engineering ethics #Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) #Imbalanced Data Classification Techniques #Law #Medical education #Medicine #Misconduct #Pathology #Political science #Psychology #Relation (database) #Research ethics #Research integrity #Scientific integrity #Scientific misconduct #Social science #Sociology

paper · doi:10.1111/modl.12760

published in Modern Language Journal 106(1), 172-195 (Wiley)

openalex publication_date 2022/02/15 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/08/01

Abstract

Abstract Scientific progress depends on the integrity of data and research findings. Intentionally distorting research data and findings constitutes scientific misconduct and introduces falsehoods into the scientific record. Unintentional distortions arising from questionable research practices (QRPs), such as unsystematically deleting outliers, pose similar obstacles to knowledge advancement. To investigate the extent of misconduct and QRPs in quantitative applied linguistics research, we surveyed 351 applied linguists who conduct quantitative research about their practices related to data handling and reporting. We found that 17% of respondents (approximately 1 in 6) admitted to 1 or more forms of scientific misconduct and that 94% admitted to 1 or more QRPs relevant to quantitative research. We also examined these practices in relation to participant background and training. Researchers admitting to misconduct tended to be earlier in their careers and had experienced publication rejection due to lack of statistically significant results. Quantitative training had generally desirable associations with QRPs. Publication rate and experience with publication rejection were associated with admission of several QRPs related to omitting statistical results. We discuss these findings and offer 5 recommendations for the field of applied linguistics to improve ethical quantitative data handling and reporting in research.

Citations

• How Big Is “Big”? Interpreting Effect Sizes in L2 Research
• Reporting and Interpreting Quantitative Research Findings: What Gets Reported and Recommendations for the Field
• The ASA Statement on p -Values: Context, Process, and Purpose
• Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science
• The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results.
• Measuring the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices With Incentives for Truth Telling
• Feeling the future: Experimental evidence for anomalous retroactive influences on cognition and affect.
• Improving Data Analysis in Second Language Acquisition by Utilizing Modern Developments in Applied Statistics
• Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
• False-Positive Psychology
• Towards a taxonomy of research misconduct: The case of business school research
• STUDY QUALITY IN SLA
• HOW KNOWLEDGEABLE ARE APPLIED LINGUISTICS AND SLA RESEARCHERS ABOUT BASIC STATISTICS?
• Coming of age: the past, present, and future of quantitative SLA research
• Scientific Utopia

Cited by

• Transparency in (Quasi‐)Experimental L2 Research: A Systematic Review of Applied Linguistics Journals in China
• Opening open science to all: demystifying reproducibility and transparency practices in linguistic research
• The Benefits of Preregistration and Registered Reports
• Replicability and transparency in physical therapy research: Time to wake up
• The benefits of preregistration and Registered Reports
• L2 Chinese Grammatical Acquisition and Processing: A Substantive and Methodological Review
• Why you should stop using the ideal L2 self and the L2 motivational self-system to measure motivation (Reaction to Al-Hoorie, Hiver & In’nami, 2024)
• “Well, Parts of Linguistics Is Open…”: Insights into Linguists’ Diverse Understandings of Open Science
• A methodological synthesis of narrative inquiry research in applied linguistics: What's the story?
• Open Access in language testing and assessment: The case of two flagship journals
• Study quality as an intellectual and ethical imperative: A proposed framework
• Developer involvement and COI disclosure in high-stakes English proficiency test validation research: A systematic review
• Applied linguistics journal editor perspectives: Research ethics and academic publishing
• Questionable research practices of medical and dental faculty in Pakistan - a confession. [europepmc]
• Questionable Research Practices: A Principled Classification and Ranking Based on Survey Data. [europepmc]

Discussions

• #AppliedLinguistics https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12760 [bsky, 0 points, 0 comments]

Related

• Reproducible research practices and transparency across linguistics
• The ‘shades of grey’ in research integrity—Researchers admit to questionable research practices that they do not perceive to be serious
• Are questionable research practices considered a successful career strategy? A novel implementation of the implicit association test
• Questionable research practices among researchers in the most research‐productive management programs
• New Classification of Research Misconduct from the Viewpoint of Truth, Trust, and Risk