In the last twenty years, research in the management field has given new insight into the world of management. Can you imagine what the consequences would be if the management researchers made mistakes? The management research frauds put the organization in corruption, which means wrong and unethical practices by the management damage the organization. Researchers engage in these fraudulent practices solely for the purpose of gaining popularity, and those who are referred to as researchers are in fact criminals. As researchers, it is our responsibility to be aware of unethical research in the management field and to draw attention to it, as the next generation of researchers may be influenced by false information.
Corruption in the Research
Corruption is often linked to moral collapse due to its association with the deterioration of values and ideas. Researchers are progressively employing the term corruption to characterize various instances of research misconduct. Corruption flourishes in the absence of robust institutional safeguards, when the personal benefits of participating in corruption are substantial, and when the chances of being caught and penalized are minimal. What insights did the literature on corruption provide? The body of work on corruption enables us to elucidate the characteristics, incentives, motivations, and outcomes of research misconduct. It offers a valuable perspective to understand the systemic forces that undermine established ethical standards and sheds light on the institutional obligations.
Editorial Vigilance and Peer Review
The role of editorial vigilance and peer review diminishes the prospect of detecting research fraud. Whistleblowers, individuals suspected of engaging in illegal or immoral activities, play a crucial role. Whistleblowers, often journal subscribers or PhD students, expose most cases of data fraud. Subject to intense pressure (including the threat of lawsuits) to withdraw their allegations, and many do so. Moreover, a case study involving the journal Innovation Management Review demonstrates that journals sometimes fail to adequately follow up. As a result, many research environments have a low probability of detection and exposure, which is not surprising.
Public Choice Theory
Public choice theory elucidates the application of economic methodologies to address conventional issues in the field of political science. Public choice theory and agency theory emphasize the importance of incentives in encouraging misconduct when individuals perceive that the benefits they are likely to receive outweigh the personal costs associated with engaging in corrupt behavior. This approach is also in line with rational crime theory (Becker, 1968), which suggests that a rational person will evaluate the potential advantages of committing a crime in comparison to the perceived drawbacks. This approach has been utilized in an analysis of retractions in the field of economics. When considering the advantages and disadvantages, it is common to find that many research settings prioritize the benefits rather than the costs.
Falsification & Self-Plagiarism
Falsification is the act of presenting research in an inaccurate manner, which includes distorting processes, excluding data, removing inconvenient results that contradict the narrative, and claiming the existence of studies that were never conducted. Falsification encompasses all of these activities. The act of using the work of another person without giving them the credit that is due to them in order to falsely claim it as one’s own for one’s own benefit is known as plagiarism. A form of plagiarism known as self-plagiarism occurs when authors reuse portions of their own previous work without giving proper credit to the original author.
P-Hacking Statistically Significant Results
P-hacking, alternatively referred to as data dredging, data fishing, and data snooping, is a common practice. Hacking refers to the deliberate manipulation of data analysis in order to obtain statistically significant results, thereby undermining the accuracy and reliability of the findings. This problematic practice compromises the integrity of scientific research. Hacking refers to the deliberate manipulation of statistical decisions and methodology choices in research in order to artificially generate statistically significant results. These decisions raise the likelihood of false-positive outcomes. Where the study suggests the presence of an effect, it is actually non-existent. P-hacking, alternatively referred to as data dredging, data fishing, and data snooping, is a common practice. Hacking refers to the deliberate manipulation of data analysis in order to obtain statistically significant results, thereby undermining the accuracy and reliability of the findings. This problematic practice compromises the integrity of scientific research.
HARKing (Hypothesizing After the Results Are Known)
This article examines a practice in scientific communication known as HARKing, which refers to the act of formulating hypotheses after the results of a study are already known. HARKING, or Hypothesizing After the Results are known, refers to the practice of presenting a hypothesis in a research report as if it were formulated before the study, even though it was actually influenced by the results obtained. If a researcher conducts a test based on a pre-existing hypothesis but later excludes that hypothesis from their research report upon discovering the test results, it can result in improper forms of post hoc analysis or post hoc theorizing, which may give rise to a post hoc hypothesis.
Quantitative Papers Misleading
Although there is a large number of quantitative papers in this sample, there is no evidence to suggest that qualitative researchers are any less likely to fabricate data, exaggerate sample sizes, or selectively choose data compared to their colleagues who focus on quantitative research. On the contrary, it seems that qualitative research probably does not accurately represent the full extent of research misconduct. Possibly, the reason for the lower retraction rate of qualitative papers is the ongoing prevalence of positivist and quantitative approaches in business and management journals. Additionally, quantitative papers are often easier to identify issues with due to their adherence to precise analytical procedures.
Co-Author Is Fraud in Management
While retraction statements often exonerate coauthors, exoneration does not occur until the end of what is usually an arduous, lengthy, and traumatic process. Coauthors undergo intense stress, a personal sense of betrayal, and reputational damage as they navigate investigations to ascertain their involvement. We should encourage academics to commit to research of the highest integrity. This means focusing afresh on the motivations of disinterested inquiry and curiosity that are the mainstay of good research, rather than seeing research mainly in terms of career advancement and publication as “a game” that we play to that end. We should strengthen our collective commitment to research integrity and help to prevent research from becoming a corrupt game that damages the scholarly community and, ultimately, our wider society.
Why People Do Misconduct Research?
The researchers: The researcher may face career pressures, personal psychological issues, inadequate training and skill, inadequate supervision or mentoring, and insufficient knowledge. It is the responsibility of researchers and institutions to adopt a variety of measures to prevent the occurrence of scientific misconduct. The most significant aspect is the provision of adequate training that builds researcher knowledge as to what constitutes research misconduct and how best to avoid it. Institutions must establish and effectively disseminate guidelines and procedures on good research practices and ethical conduct among their research community.
We must responsible: Supervisors should also provide guidance and support to emerging researchers regarding the proper protocols and standards, including the definition of ethical misconduct in research. Inadequate awareness will hinder the effective resolution of this crucial matter. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of researchers to independently verify the worldwide standards and guidelines for ethical research in order to guarantee that they are not involved in any form of scientific misconduct.
Dr. Abid Hussain Nawaz
You Might ALso Like
