A survey finds that economists agree that 17 our of 18 research practices are “unjustifiable.” However, many economists engage in these practices in alarming numbers. Many of the unjustifiable practices relate to econometric issues regarding data, modeling, and cherry picking.
Economists seem to be aware that such practices can be as damaging to scientific progress as outright fraud. What is worrying is that – in conflict with economists’ convictions – their use seems to be the rule rather than the exception.
Almost every economist reports having engaged in at least one practice considered unacceptable by peers. For example, one third of the participants admit to having cherry-picked results – the selective presentation of empirical results that confirm one’s argument is rejected by 84%.
The unjustifiable practices that irk me in particular are “not citing work in lower ranked journals” and “citing strategically in order to raise publication prospects” because several economists and journalists have used my publications in their articles but have failed to provide readers citations.
