doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-02421-w
Grass-roots action against bad behaviour has spurred reform — and should keep going.
Ten years ago this week, I was startled to see tweets saying that Dutch psychologist Diederik Stapel, a former colleague, had admitted to falsifying and fabricating data in dozens of articles. My inbox filled with e-mails from fellow methodologists, researchers who examine and refine research techniques and statistical tools. They expressed disbelief about the extent of the misconduct, but also a sense of inevitability. We all knew that sloppiness, low ethical standards and competitiveness were widespread.
What happened next was inspiring: an open debate that went far beyond misconduct and focused on improving research. Numerous researchers, many early in their careers, used social media to call for bias-countering practices, such as sharing data and plans for analysis. It changed the conversation. Before 2011, my applications for grants to study statistical errors and biases in psychology were repeatedly rejected as low priority. By 2012, I had received funding and set up my current research group.
This August, another incident of data fraud came to light, this time in a 2012 publication from behavioural-science superstar Dan Ariely, who agrees that the data are fabricated, but says he did not fabricate them. This case, ironically in a study assessing how to encourage honesty, is an invitation to examine how expectations for research practice have changed, and how much further reform must go.