Reproducibilidad, Replicación y Prácticas de Investigación Cuestionables en Estudios de Repositorios de Tesis de Maestría y Doctorado en México y Guatemala

Humberto Emilio  Aguilera Arévalo; María Guadalupe Ramírez Contreras

doi:10.46780/cunzac.v5i1.60

Authors

Humberto Emilio Aguilera Arévalo Universidad Masaryk, República Checa https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6716-8172
María Guadalupe Ramírez Contreras Universidad de Guadalajara

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.46780/cunzac.v5i1.60

Keywords:

reproducibility, replication, questionable research practices, publication bias, thesis repositories, Mexico, Guatemala

Abstract

AIMS: To assess whether Master and Ph.D. theses, in Open Access thesis repositories in Mexico and Guatemala, can be reproduced. Likewise, it was aimed to assess whether replication of studies is made. Additionally, whether questionable research practices and publication bias are present. METHOD: This study employed a quantitative, descriptive, and cross-sectional research design. It was gathered a convenience sample that consisted of 17 studies from 13 institutional repositories from Mexico, and 8 studies from 6 repositories from Guatemala. The universe was composed by 46 institutional repositories from Mexico (listed in the Mexican Network of Institutional Repositories) and 7 from Guatemala. RESULTS: It was found that no study in the sample can be reproduced. Likewise, replication of other studies is absent. It was discovered that questionable research practices were present in most of the studies. However, it wasn’t observed publication bias in studies. CONCLUSION: We concluded that reproducibility and replication of studies are not popular among universities included in the sample. Likewise, it’s worrisome to observe questionable research practices in most studies in the sample. Universities must address these issues as soon as possible.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Humberto Emilio Aguilera Arévalo, Universidad Masaryk, República Checa

Es doctor en Psicología Social por la Universidad Masaryk, República Checa. En la República Checa radicó por 16 años en donde fue docente e investigador en University of New York en Prague y Karlova Univerzita. Actualmente es investigador en diferentes líneas de investigación relativas a la cognición social, etnopsicología y representaciones sociales.

María Guadalupe Ramírez Contreras, Universidad de Guadalajara

María Guadalupe Ramírez Contreras, doctora en Ciencias de la Salud Pública. Profesora titular “A” en el Centro Universitario de Tonalá de la Universidad de Guadalajara. Miembro del Sistema Nacional de Investigadores del CONACYT. Su línea de investigación es sobre envejecimiento, migración, salud y cuidado de los adultos mayores. Autora de artículos científicos y libros de texto.

References

Baker, M. (2016) Is there a reproducibility crisis? A Nature survey lifts the lid on how researchers view the ‘crisis rocking science and what they think will help. Nature, 533 (7604), 452-455. https://doi.org/10.1038/533452a DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/533452a

Barba, L.A. (2018). Terminologies for Reproducible Research. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1802.03311

Begley, C. G., & Ioannidis, J. P. (2015) Reproducibility in science. Circulation research, 116 (1). 116-126. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.114.303819 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.114.303819

Bouter, L.M., Tijdink, J., Axelsen, N., Martinson, B. C., & ter Riet, G. (2016). Ranking major and minor research misbehaviors: results from a survey among participants of four World Conferences on Research Integrity. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 1 (17). 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-016-0024-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-016-0024-5

Dickersin, K. (1990) The Existence of Publication Bias and Risk Factors for Its Occurrence. JAMA, 263 (10). 1385–1389. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1990.03440100097014 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.263.10.1385

John, L. K., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2012). Measures the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychological Science, 23 (5). 524-532. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611430953 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611430953

Joober, R., Schmitz, N., Annable, L., & Boksa, P. (2012). Publication bias: what are the challenges and can they be overcome? Journal of psychiatry & neuroscience: JPN, 37(3), 149–152. https://doi.org/10.1503/jpn.120065 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/jpn.120065

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2019). Reproducibility and Replicability in Science. The National Academies Press.https://doi.org/10.17226/25303 DOI: https://doi.org/10.17226/25303

Neuliep, J. W., and Crandall, R. (1990). Editorial bias against replication research. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality. 5, 85–90

Patil, P., Peng, R. D., & Leek, J. (2016). A statistical definition for reproducibility and replicability. bioRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/066803 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/066803

Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (2018). Replication Studies. Improving Reproducibility in the Empirical Sciences. KNAW