Mejora de la calidad educativa en educación superior incentivando buenas prácticas de investigación

  1. Ruiz Ruano, Ana María 1
  2. López Puga, Jorge 2
  1. 1 Universidad de Granada, Departamento de Psicología Evolutiva y de la Educación
  2. 2 Universidad de Granada, Departamento de Personalidad, Evaluación y Tratamiento Psicológico
Revista:
International Journal of Developmental and Educational Psychology: INFAD. Revista de Psicología

ISSN: 0214-9877

Año de publicación: 2022

Título del ejemplar: DEL DESARROLLO Y DE LA VIDA

Volumen: 1

Número: 2

Páginas: 75-82

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.17060/IJODAEP.2022.N2.V1.2444 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: International Journal of Developmental and Educational Psychology: INFAD. Revista de Psicología

Objetivos de desarrollo sostenible

Resumen

Scientific community witness, from time, episodes of academic and scientific fraud impacting on mass media. Fortunately, those type of events are rare, but they have a strong effect upon public opinion. Consequently, higher education and university academic activity is at risk of being perceived negatively. Scientific credibility is also threatened which favours misinformation and therise of populism. Theterm “questionableresearch practices” has even been coined to refer to some research activities suspected to be incongruent with ethical standards. Given that higher education is aimed at promoting, encouraging, and supporting research quality practices, our objective in this paper is twofold. Firstly, we identify those questionable research practices appearing with more frequency in higher education. Secondly, we propose a set of measures minimise, avoid, or eradicate those questionable research practises risking scientific integrity. We hope our suggestions are welcomed by scientific community to open discussions in order to improve and optimise the quality of training in higher education. 

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Abbott, A. (2012). Plagiarism charge for Romanian minister. Nature, 485, 289. https://doi.org/10.1038/485289a
  • American Psychological Association (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6 ed.). American Psychological Association.
  • Antonakis, J. (2017). On doing better science: From thrill of Discovery to policy implications. The Leadership Quarterly, 28 , 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.01.006
  • Bakan, D. (1966). The test of significance in psychological research. Psychological Bulletin, 66, 423-437.
  • Ball, P.,y Maxmen, A. (2020). Theepic battleagainstcoronavirus misinformation and conspiracytheories. Nature, 581, 371–374. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-01452-z
  • Bates, J. A. (1991). Teaching hypothesis testing by debunking a demostration of telepathy. Teaching of Psychology, 18(2), 94-97.
  • Biagioli, M. (2016). Watch out for cheats in citation game. Nature, 535, 201. https://doi.org/10.1038/535201a
  • Brennan, P. (2008). Duplication: most cases on database are innocent. Nature, 452, 29. https://doi.org/10.1038/452029d
  • Callaway, E. (2011). Report finds massive fraud at Dutch universities. Nature, 479, 15. https://doi.org/10.1038/479015a
  • Callway, E. (2016). Beat it, impact factor! Publishing elite turns against controversial metric. Nature, 535, 210-211. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2016.20224
  • Casadevall, A., y Fang, F. C. (2012). Reforming science: methodological and cultural reforms. Infection and Immunity, 80, 891-896. https://doi.org/10.1128/IAI.06183-11
  • Chaddah, P. (2014). Not all plagiarism requires a retraction. Nature, 511, 127. https://doi.org/10.1038/511127a
  • Corbyn, Z. (2012). Misconduct Misconduct is the main cause of life-sciences retractions. Nature, 490, 21. https://doi.org/10.1038/490021a
  • Crocker, J. (2011). The road to fraud starts with a single step. Nature, 479, 151. https://doi.org/10.1038/479151a
  • David, D. (2008). Duplication spreads the word to a wider audience. Nature, 452, 29. https://doi.org/10.1038/452029b
  • Else, H. (2021). Swedish research misconduct agency swamped with cases in first year. Nature, 597, 461. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-02451-4
  • Errami, M., y Garner, H. (2008). A tale of two citations. Nature, 451, 397-399. https://doi.org/10.1038/451397a
  • Fanelli, D. (2013). Redefine misconduct as distorted reporting. Nature, 494, 149. https://doi.org/10.1038/494149a
  • Fenner, M. (2008). Duplication: stop favouring applicant with longest list. Nature, 452, 29. https://doi.org/10.1038/452029a
  • Galton, D. J. (2012). Did Mendel falsify his data? QJM: An International Journal of Medicine, 105(2), 215-216. https://doi.org/10.1093/qjmed/hcr195
  • Halsey, L. G., Currant-Everett, D., Vowler, S. L., y Drummond, G. B. (2015). The fickled P value generates irreproducible results. Nature Methods, 12, 179-185. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.3288
  • Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., Rijcke, S., y Rafols, I. (2015). Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature, 520, 429–431. https://doi.org/10.1038/520429a
  • Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine, 2(8), 696–701. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
  • Ladyman, J., Lambert, J., y Weisner, K. (2013). What is a complex system? European Journal of Philosophy of Science, 3, 33-67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-012-0056-8
  • León, O. G. (1996). Cómo entusiasmar a 100 estudiantes en la primera clase de metodología e introducir al mismo tiempo 22 conceptos fundamentales de la materia. Psicothema, 8, 221-226.
  • Macilwain, C. (2012). The time is right to confront misconduct. Nature, 488, 7. https://doi.org/10.1038/488007a
  • Mejlgaard, N., Bouter, L. M., Gaskell, G., Kavouras, P., Allum, N., Bendtsen, A. K., ... y Veltri, G. A. (2020). Research integrity: nine ways to move from talk to walk. Nature, 586, 358-360. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-02847-8
  • Morató, Y. (2012). Una reflexión necesaria sobre el plagio en el EEES. UPO INNOVA: Revista de Innovación Docente, 1, 361-368.
  • Munafò, M., Nosek, B. A., Bishop, D. V. M., Button, K. S., Chambers, C. D., Percie du Sert, N., ..., Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2017). A manifesto for reproducible science. Nature Human Behavior, 1, Artículo Número 21.https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-016-0021
  • Neaves, W. (2012). The roots of research misconduct. Nature, 488, 121–122. https://doi.org/10.1038/nj7409-121a
  • Nuzzo, R. (2014). Scientific method: statistical errors. Nature, 506, 150-152. https://doi.org/10.1038/506150a
  • Orlitzky, M. (2012). How can significance tests be deinstitutionalized? Organizational Research Methods, 5, 199-228. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428111428356
  • Pagano, R. R. (1999). Estadística para las ciencias del comportamiento (5ª ed.). Thomson.
  • Pappas, S. (2021). Leading the charge to address research misconduct. Monitor Psychology, 52, 71-75.
  • Pascual, J., Frías, M. D., y García, J. F. (2000). El procedimiento de significación estadística (NHST): su trayectoria y actualidad. Revista de Historia de la Psicología, 21(1), 9-26.
  • Puga, J. L. (2014). Analyzing and reducing plagiarism at university. European Journal of Education and Psychology, 7, 131-140. https://doi.org/10.30552/ejep.v7i2.102
  • Puga, J. L. (2014). Using playing cards to differentiate probability interpretations. Teaching Statistics, 36, 76-79. https://doi.org/10.1111/test.12055
  • Ruiz-Ruano, A. M., Palazón Pérez de los Cobos, A., y Puga, J. L. (2018). Six manipulative tasks to improve attitudes towards statistics at university. En L. Gómez, A. López, e I. Candel (Eds.), ICERI2018 Proceedings (pp. 8502-8508). IATED Academy. https://doi.org/10.21125/iceri.2018.0555
  • Ruiz-Ruano, A. M., y Puga, J. L. (2020). Cómo mejorar la comunicación de estadísticos inferenciales en ciencias de la salud. Revista Española de Comunicación en Salud, 11(1), 139-145. https://doi.org/10.20318/recs.2020.5173
  • Smaldino, P. E., y McElreath, R. (2016). The natural selection of bad science. Royal Society Open Science, 3, 160384. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.160384
  • Stern, H. S. (2016). A test by any other name: p-values, Bayes Factors and statistical inference. Multivariate Behaviour Research, 51, 23-39. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2015.1099032
  • Sureda, J., Comas, R., y Morey, M. (2009). Las causas del plagio académico entre el alumnado universitario según el profesorado. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación, 50, 197-2020. https://doi.org/10.35362/rie500669
  • Van Noorden, R. (2013). Brazilian citation scheme outed. Nature, 500, 510–511. https://doi.org/10.1038/500510a
  • Wasserstein, R. L., y Lazar, N. A. (2016). The ASA’s statement on p-values: Context, process, and purpose. The American Statistician, 70, 129-133. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2016.1154108
  • Werner, R. (2015). The focus on bibliometrics makes papers less useful. Nature, 517, 245. https://doi.org/10.1038/517245a
  • Wicherts, J. M. (2011). Psychology must learn a lesson from fraud case. Nature, 480, 7. https://doi.org/10.1038/480007a
  • Wouters, P., Sugimoto, C. R., Larivière, V., McVeigh, M. E., Pulverer, B., de Rijcke, S., y Waltman, L. (2019). Rethinking impact factors: better ways to judge a journal. Nature, 569, 621-623. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-01643-3
  • Yong, E. (2012). Replication studies: bad copy. Nature, 485, 298-300. https://doi.org/10.1038/485298a
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet