Objectives

Questionable research practices (QRPs) lead to incorrect research results and contribute to irreproducibility in science. Researchers and institutions have proposed open science practices (OSPs) to improve the detectability of QRPs and the credibility of science. We examine the prevalence of QRPs and OSPs in criminology, and researchers’ opinions of those practices.

Methods

We administered an anonymous survey to authors of articles published in criminology journals. Respondents self-reported their own use of 10 QRPs and 5 OSPs. They also estimated the prevalence of use by others, and reported their attitudes toward the practices.

Results

QRPs and OSPs are both common in quantitative criminology, about as common as they are in other fields. Criminologists who responded to our survey support using QRPs in some circumstances, but are even more supportive of using OSPs. We did not detect a significant relationship between methodological training and either QRP or OSP use. Support for QRPs is negatively and significantly associated with support for OSPs. Perceived prevalence estimates for some practices resembled a uniform distribution, suggesting criminologists have little knowledge of the proportion of researchers that engage in certain questionable practices.

Conclusions

Most quantitative criminologists in our sample have used QRPs, and many have used multiple QRPs. Moreover, there was substantial support for QRPs, raising questions about the validity and reproducibility of published criminological research. We found promising levels of OSP use, albeit at levels lagging what researchers endorse. The findings thus suggest that additional reforms are needed to decrease QRP use and increase the use of OSPs.

中文翻译：

---

定量犯罪学中可疑的研究实践和开放科学

目标

有问题的研究实践 (QRP) 会导致不正确的研究结果，并导致科学的不可重复性。研究人员和机构提出了开放科学实践 (OSP)，以提高 QRP 的可检测性和科学的可信度。我们研究了犯罪学中 QRP 和 OSP 的流行情况，以及研究人员对这些做法的看法。

方法

我们对在犯罪学期刊上发表的文章的作者进行了一项匿名调查。受访者自我报告了他们自己使用的 10 个 QRP 和 5 个 OSP。他们还估计了其他人使用的流行程度，并报告了他们对这些做法的态度。

结果

QRP 和 OSP 在定量犯罪学中都很常见，与其他领域一样普遍。在某些情况下使用 QRP 回应我们的调查支持的犯罪学家，但更支持使用 OSP。我们没有发现方法论培训与 QRP 或 OSP 使用之间存在显着关系。对 QRP 的支持与对 OSP 的支持呈显着负相关。对某些做法的感知流行率估计类似于均匀分布，这表明犯罪学家对从事某些可疑做法的研究人员比例知之甚少。

结论

我们样本中的大多数定量犯罪学家都使用了 QRP，并且许多人使用了多个 QRP。此外，QRP 得到了大量支持，引发了对已发表犯罪学研究的有效性和可重复性的质疑。我们发现 OSP 的使用水平很有希望，尽管水平落后于研究人员认可的水平。因此，研究结果表明需要进行额外的改革以减少 QRP 的使用并增加 OSP 的使用。