Main Article Content

Abstract

The present commentary piece discusses HARKing as a form of scientific misconduct that Indonesian scholars, particularly in psychology, should avoid. I specifically elaborate on HARKing as a practice that goes against the basic principle of scientific research (i.e., the falsification principle). I also provide some examples of HARKing practices that psychological researchers should avoid. Finally, I noted a crucial reason why Jurnal Psikologi Ulayat needs to be attentive to HARKing practices.

Keywords

falsifikasi pelanggaran ilmiah falsification HARKing scientific misconduct

Article Details

How to Cite
Burhan, O. K. (2022). HARKing: Unscientific practice of hypotheses-results matching. Jurnal Psikologi Ulayat, 9(1), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.24854/jpu638

References

  1. Andrade, C. (2021). HARKing, cherry-picking, p-hacking, fishing expeditions, and data dredging and mining as questionable research practices. The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 82, e1–e3. https://doi.org/10.4088/JCP.20f13804
  2. Earp, B. D., & Trafimow, D. (2015). Replication, falsification, and the crisis of confidence in social psychology. Frontiers in Psychology, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00621
  3. Holtz, P., & Monnerjahn, P. (2017). Falsificationism is not just ‘potential’ falsifiability, but requires ‘actual’ falsification: Social psychology, critical rationalism, and progress in science. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 47, 348–362. https://doi.org/10.1111/jtsb.12134
  4. Kerlinger, F. N. (1973). Foundations of behavioral research (2nd ed). Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
  5. Peirce, C. S. (1887). The fixation of belief. Popular Science, 12, 1–15.
  6. Popper, K. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. University Press.
  7. Rubin, M. (2017). When does HARKing hurt? Identifying when different types of undisclosed post hoc hypothesizing harm scientific progress. Review of General Psychology, 21, 308–320. https://doi.org/10.1037/gpr0000128