Paper Short Abstract

In discussing learning, observing, applying and overcoming questionable research practices in our own research, we build a narrative raising awareness about experiencing and internalizing perverse incentive structures stemming from scientific culture and institutions.

Paper Abstract

Why would we engage in practices that undermine the reliability of science? If the purpose of science is to produce valid, systematic and reliable knowledge, QRPs are basically anti-science. Yet, they remain prevalent. We believe that both (a) the desire to produce findings that can be recognized, published and cited in the scientific community, but also (b) through transmission, mimicry, sanction and reification drives these behaviors. By starting at the beginning to understand why we became scientific researchers in the first place we will demonstrate that our intentions were to produce scientific knowledge - knowledge that could be used to address real world (mis)understandings and problems. At some point we came under the delusion that QRPs would produce this knowledge. In this panel we use autoethnographic analysis of our experiences as researchers to understand QRPs and build a narrative to shed light on the inner-workings of perverse incentive structures from the researcher perspective. We will focus our panel toward discussions of the publish-or-perish paradigm and how we experience this through our cultural and institutional interactions in science. We experience this in the job search process for example, where publications are at the center of our potential for getting an interview. In the funding search process as well, publications are the key credentials to measure our worth as scientists. In sharing and discussing our stories, we hope to address the question asked in the call for proposals of “how can metascience help us to understand and improve institutionalised research cultures”.