Table 1.
Journals used to identify researchers working in ecology and evolution.
Fig 1.
The prevalence of Questionable Research Practices in ecology and evolution.
Light columns represent the proportion of evolution researchers and dark columns represent the proportion of ecology researchers who reported having used a practice at least once. The dots show researchers’ mean estimates of suspected use by colleagues in their field. Dots that are much higher than bars may suggest that the QRP is considered particularly socially unacceptable [17]. Error bars are 95% confidence intervals.
Fig 2.
Proportion of researchers in ecology and evolution reporting frequency of use (or not) of 10 Questionable Research Practices.
Shading indicates the proportion of each use category that identified the practice as acceptable. Error bars are 95% confidence intervals.
Table 2.
Percentage (with 95% CIs) of researchers in psychology, ecology and evolution who reported having used each Questionable Research Practice at least once.
n = 555–626.
Table 3.
Proportion (with 95% CI) of researchers in ecology and evolution (combined) who reported having doubts about scientific integrity*.
Table 4.
Frequently offered arguments against and justifications for various Questionable Research Practices, summarising qualitative comments provided by ecology and evolution researchers.
Columns relate to the description of the questionable research practice, complaints respondents made about the practice, indications on why they thought that practice might be tempting, and conditions that respondents identified as justifying the practice.