Scientists dedicate their careers to the quest of learning about the world through the collection and reporting of empirical data. Subsequently, practitioners apply this information in a variety of settings to positively impact society at large. However, there is a growing consensus that the current system for publishing and disseminating research findings has a negative impact on the trustworthiness of the extant body of scientific knowledge. Using a theological framework to undergird the discussion, we address current issues of scientific integrity as they pertain to the training of future researchers in the context of the faculty/graduate student mentorship. Moreover, we propose strategies for those who wish to honor God in their scientific professions by reporting their work honestly, and how they may prepare their students for the ethical challenges inherent in the existing publishing system.
AlvarezBBonnetJLKahnM (2014) Publish, not perish: Supporting graduate students as aspiring authors. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication2(3): eP1141.
2.
AndersonMSMartinsonBCDe VriesR (2007) Normative dissonance in science: Results from a national survey of U.S. sciences. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics2(4): 3–14.
3.
AndersonMSRonningEADeVriesRMartinsonBC (2010) Extending the Mertonian norms: Scientists' subscription to norms of research. Journal of Higher Education81(3): 366–393.
4.
BedeianAGTaylorSGMillerAN (2010) Management science on the credibility bubble: Cardinal sins and various misdemeanors. Academy of Management Learning and Education9(4): 715–725.
5.
BennethumDM (2003) Listen, God is Calling: Luther Speaks of Vocation, Faith and Work, Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress.
6.
CarsonLBartneckCVogesK (2012) Over-competitiveness in academia: A literature review. Disruptive Science and Technology1(4): 183–190.
7.
CortinaJMFolgerRG (1998) When is it acceptable to accept a null hypothesis: No way, Jose?Organizational Research Methods1(3): 334–350.
8.
CraneNJPearsonZ (2011) Can we get a pub from this? Reflections on competition and the pressure to publish while in graduate school. The Geographical Bulletin52(2): 77–80.
9.
DayNE (2011) The silent majority: Manuscript rejection and its impact on scholars. Academy of Management Learning and Education10(4): 704–718.
10.
FanelliD (2010) “Positive” results increase down the hierarchy of the sciences. PLoS ONE5(4): e10068.
11.
FromsonPM (2006) Evoking shame and guilt: A comparison of two theories. Psychological Reports98(1): 99–105.
12.
GasparyanAYGerasimovANVoronovAAKitasGD (2015) Rewarding peer reviewers: Maintaining the integrity of science communication. Journal of Korean Medical Sciences30(4): 360–364.
13.
Giner-SorollaR (2012) Science or art? How aesthetic standards grease the way through the publication bottleneck but undermine science. Perspectives on Psychological Science7(6): 562–571.
14.
GreenwaldAG (1975) Consequences of prejudice against the null hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin82(1): 1–20.
15.
GrossettiMEckertDGingrasYJégouLLarivièreVMilardB (2013) Cities and the geographical deconcentration of scientific activity: A multilevel analysis of publications (1987–2007). Urban Studies51(10): 2219–2234.
16.
HigginsET (1987) Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review94(3): 319–340.
17.
HornSA (2015) The social and psychological costs of peer review: Stress and coping with manuscript rejection. Journal of Management Inquiry. Epub ahead of print 19 May 2015. DOI: 10.1177/1056492615586597.
18.
HortonM (2014) Calvin on the Christian Life: Glorifying and Enjoying God Forever, Wheaton: Crossway.
19.
IoannidisJPA (2005) Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine2(8): 696–701.
20.
IoannidisJPA (2012) Why science is not necessarily self-correcting. Perspectives on Psychological Science7(6): 645–654.
21.
KellerT (2013) Every Good Endeavor: Connecting Your Work to God's Work, New York: Penguin Group (USA) Inc.
22.
KepesSMcDanielMA (2013) How trustworthy is the scientific literature in industrial and organizational psychology?Industrial and Organizational Psychology6(3): 252–268.
23.
KerrNL (1998) HARKing: Hypothesizing after the results are known. Personality and Social Psychology Review2(3): 196–217.
24.
LandisRSRogelbergSG (2013) Our scholarly practices are derailing our progress: The importance of “nothing” in the organizational sciences. Industrial and Organizational Psychology6(3): 299–302.
25.
LawsKR (2013) Negativland – a home for all findings in psychology. BioMedCentral Psychology1(2): 1–8.
26.
LesserLIEbbelingCBGooznerMWypijDLudwigDS (2007) Relationship between funding source and conclusion among nutrition-related scientific articles. PLoS Medicine4(1): 41–46.
27.
LutherM. McCainPTRathmannRL (2006) Luther's Large Catechism with Study Questions, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House.
28.
MartinJ (2010) The Jesuit Guide to (Almost) Everything, New York: HarperCollins.
29.
MazzolaJJDeulingJK (2013) Forgetting what we learned as graduate students: HARKing and selective outcomes reporting in I-O journal articles. Industrial and Organizational Psychology6(3): 279–284.
30.
MillerANTaylorSGBedeianAG (2011) Publish or perish: Academic life as management faculty live it. Career Development International16(5): 422–445.
31.
MurayamaKPekrunRFiedlerK (2013) Research practices that can prevent an inflation of false-positive rates. Personality and Social Psychology Review18(2): 107–118.
32.
NeuliepJWCrandallR (1990) Editorial bias against replication research. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality5(4): 85–90.
33.
NeuliepJWCrandallR (1993) Reviewer bias against replication research. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality8(6): 21–29.
O'MalleyJW (1993) The First Jesuits, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
37.
Open Science Collaboration (2015) Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science349(6251): 943–951.
38.
Osherovich (2011) Hedging against academic risk. Science-Business eXchange4(15): 1–2.
39.
PachterWSFoxREZimbardoPAntonuccioDO (2007) Corporate funding and conflicts of interest: A primer for psychologists. American Psychologist62(9): 1005–1015.
RittgersRK (2012) The Reformation of Suffering: Pastoral Theology and Lay Piety in Late Medieval and Early Modern Germany. Oxford Studies in Historical Theology, New York: Oxford University Press.
42.
ShadishWRCookTDCampbellDT (2002) Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference, Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
43.
SharpRRYarboroughM (2006) Informed trust and the financing of biomedical research. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics34(2): 460–464.
44.
SimmonsJPNelsonLDSimonsohnU (2011) False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science22(11): 1359–1366.
45.
SmithR (2006) Peer review: A flawed process at the heart of science and journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine99(4): 178–182.
46.
StanleyDJSpenceJR (2014) Expectations for replications: Are yours realistic?Perspectives on Psychological Science9(3): 305–318.
47.
SulsJMartinR (2009) The air we breathe: A critical look at practices and alternatives in the peer-review process. Perspectives on Psychological Science4(1): 40–50.
48.
TajfelHTurnerJC (1979) An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In: AustingWGWorchelS (eds) The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, Monteray: Brooks-Cole, pp. 33–47.
49.
TavrisCAronsonE (2008) Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts, New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company.
TijdinkJKVergouwenACMSmuldersYM (2013) Publication pressure and burn out among Dutch medical professors: A nationwide survey. PLoS ONE8(9): 1–6.
52.
TitusSLBallouJM (2014) Ensuring PhD development of responsible conduct of research behaviors: Who's responsible?Science and Engineering Ethics20(1): 221–235.
53.
TsangJA (2002) Moral rationalization and the integration of situational factors and psychological processes in immoral behavior. Review of General Psychology6(1): 25–50.
