Crossing the Red Line? Empirical Evidence and Useful Recommendations on Questionable Research Practices among Business Scholars
通过两项研究，调查印尼商业学者中有问题的研究实践（QRPs）的使用程度及影响因素，发现自我承认率和预估流行率较高，主要驱动因素包括发表压力、拒稿恐惧、迎合审稿人和奖励，而正式制裁和预防措施则起到抑制作用。
Abstract Academic leaders in management from all over the world—including recent calls by the Academy of Management Shaw (Academy of Management Journal 60(3): 819–822, 2017)—have urged further research into the extent and use of questionable research practices (QRPs). In order to provide empirical evidence on the topic of QRPs, this work presents two linked studies. Study 1 determines the level of use of QRPs based on self-admission rates and estimated prevalence among business scholars in Indonesia. It was determined that if the level of QRP use identified in Study 1 was quite high, Study 2 would be conducted to follow-up on this result, and this was indeed the case. Study 2 examines the factors that encourage and discourage the use of QRPs in the sample analyzed. The main research findings are as follows: (a) in Study 1, we found the self-admission rates and estimated prevalence of business scholars’ involvement in QRPs to be quite high when compared with studies conducted in other countries and (b) in Study 2, we found pressure for publication from universities, fear of rejection of manuscripts, meeting the expectations of reviewers, and available rewards to be the main reasons for the use of QRPs in Indonesia, whereas (c) formal sanctions and prevention efforts are factors that discourage QRPs. Recommendations for stakeholders (in this case, reviewers, editors, funders, supervisors, chancellors and others) are also provided in order to reduce the use of QRPs.