Good science requires not only open and objective reporting of new data; it also requires unbiased review of the literature. However, there are no rules and regulations regarding citations, and many authors cherry-pick citations that are consistent with their claims. Even when studies have failed to replicate, original studies are cited without citing the replication failures. In some cases, authors even cite original articles that have been retracted. Fortunately, it is easy to spot these acts of unscientific behavior. Here I am starting a project to list examples of bad scientific behaviors. Hopefully, more scientists will take the time to hold their colleagues accountable for ethical behavior in citations. They can even do so by posting anonymously on the PubPeer comment site.
| BESSI Scale | DESIRABILITY | PRED | Effect Size | EV | UV |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM-Time Management | 0.39 | RES | 0.62 | 0.75 | 0.25 |
| SM-Organizational Skills | 0.48 | ORG | 0.80 | 0.86 | 0.14 |
| SM-Capacity for Consistency | 0.48 | RES | 0.63 | 0.63 | 0.37 |
| SM-Task Management | 0.45 | PRO | 0.83 | 0.89 | 0.11 |
| SM-Detail Management | 0.57 | RES | 0.56 | 0.65 | 0.35 |
| SM-Rule Following Skill | 0.45 | RES | 0.96 | 0.74 | 0.26 |
| SM-Responsibility Management | 0.61 | RES | 0.58 | 0.72 | 0.28 |
| SM-Goal Regulation | 0.71 | RES | 0.29 | 0.77 | 0.23 |
| SM-Decision Making Skill | 0.68 | RES | 0.45 | 0.66 | 0.34 |
| SE-Leadership Skill | 0.53 | ASS | 0.76 | 0.87 | 0.13 |
| SE-Persuasive Skill | 0.49 | ASS | 0.39 | 0.68 | 0.32 |
| SE-Expressive Skill | 0.59 | SOC | 0.36 | 0.48 | 0.52 |
| SE-Conversational Skill | 0.56 | SOC | 0.65 | 0.74 | 0.26 |
| SE/SM-Energy Regulation | 0.60 | PRO | 0.50 | 0.73 | 0.27 |
| CO-Perspective Taking Skill | 0.71 | SYM | 0.52 | 0.82 | 0.18 |
| CO-Capacity for Trust | 0.54 | TRU | 0.71 | 0.79 | 0.21 |
| CO-Capacity for Social Warmth | 0.68 | EXT | 0.43 | 0.75 | 0.25 |
| CO-Teamwork Skill | 0.66 | POL | 0.33 | 0.58 | 0.42 |
| CO/SM-Ethical Competence | 0.69 | RES | 0.30 | 0.60 | 0.40 |
| ER-Stress Regulation | 0.52 | ANX | -0.62 | 0.84 | 0.16 |
| ER-Capacity for Optimism | 0.52 | DEP | -0.68 | 0.77 | 0.23 |
| ER-Anger Management | 0.56 | EMO | -0.51 | 0.70 | 0.30 |
| ER-Confidence Regulation | 0.52 | DEP | -0.64 | 0.68 | 0.32 |
| ER/SM-Impulse Regulation | 0.55 | CON | 0.40 | 0.60 | 0.40 |
| IN-Abstract Thinking Skill | 0.73 | INT | 0.53 | 0.82 | 0.18 |
| IN-Creative Skill | 0.59 | INV | 0.70 | 0.84 | 0.16 |
| IN-Artistic Skill | 0.42 | ART | 0.48 | 0.65 | 0.35 |
| IN-Cultural Competence | 0.63 | OPE | 0.22 | 0.45 | 0.55 |
| IN/SM Information Processing Skill | 0.62 | CON | 0.32 | 0.48 | 0.52 |
| XX-Self Reflection Skill | 0.69 | - | - | 0.48 | 0.52 |
| XX-Adaptability | 0.63 | ANX | -0.22 | 0.55 | 0.45 |
| XX-Capacity For Independence | 0.66 | CON | 0.33 | 0.58 | 0.42 |
Some of these critiques of citations appear to me to be pretty superficial. For example Knox/Lowe/Mummolo APSR webpage says it was published online May-2020 (before the Johnson retraction in July 2020).
You think people should be on the hook to issue corrections for *citing* papers that are subsequently retracted? That seems to me to be quite excessive. (The Johnson paper was retracted *because* of the work by Knox/Lowe/Mummolo, so they would ultimately need to include a citation to the original article anyway.)
Thank you for pointing out that the article was published online before the retraction was published. While this means that the authors are not at fault, it is still useful to alert readers of the retraction.
It seems that all of the papers that cite Bem here are using it as an example of a study which was an impetus for the credibility crisis and some implicitly or near explicitly point towards it as an example of QRP, for example, Chin et al which feature the QRP in the paper title even. No-one is trying to claim that ESP is real here (not to say some parapsychologists might).
So these are very different cases to the ego depletion ones.
It does seem quite bizarre to go to this effort, since the “bad scientific behaviors” you are referring to are that whenever anyone cites Bem for any reason, they are doing bad science if they don’t cite Schimmack (2012) as well at the same time.
Should articles that are critical of Bem’s (2011) article cite articles that pointed out flaws in Bem (2011) such as Schimmack (2012)? I think so. After all, how can you cite Bem (2011) to question the claims in the article. The article is not self-critical, it has not been retracted and we should treat it like any other article in scientific journals. The claims in the article are based on solid empirical foundations. If you want to imply that this is not the case, it is not good enough to say “but we know ESP” does not exist. That is not a scientific argument. So, to criticize it you should cite replication failures or evidence of QRPs.
I think you do understand how writing works, and how people cite work in particular contexts for particular purposes and audiences as part of a paragraph structure.
ok, do you think this quote here is an example of unethical and unscientific behaviour (unfortunately a blog post so you cannot add to pubpeer if you did):
“However, in 2011 an article by a well-respected social psychologists changed all this. Daryl Bem published an article that showed time-reversed causal processes. Seemingly, people were able to feel the future (Bem, 2011). This article shock the foundations of social psychology because most social psychologists did not believe in paranormal phenomena. Yet, Bem presented evidence for his crazy claim in 8 out of 9 studies. The only study that did not work was with supraliminal stimuli. The other studies used subliminal stimuli, suggesting that only our unconscious self can feel the future.”
source: https://replicationindex.com/2020/12/05/implicit-love/
I suspect you do not think so, and you could explain why in this particular case you did not also cite those two papers you mention.
If you can perform such an explanation, I would imagine you could also use some theory of mind, logic and reason to explain for these other paragraphs why they did not also cite those two papers given their narrative goals in the context of the paper and paragraph, e.g.:
“Daryl Bem’s paper claiming to find evidence of Extra Sensory Perception (ESP; Bem 2011), and several cases of fraud, the field of psychology entered a period of intense self-examination…”
I think people can see the point you are making with papers such as those with Baumeister uncritically citing evidence for ego-depletion without referring to some of the disputed evidence claims. But by including them along with all these examples with Bem about the replication crisis and tarring with the same brush you devalue your more legitimate criticisms, and make it easier for you to be dismissed. Particularly when you take issue with them not citing you.