Editing Research (section)

== Problems in research ==
{{See also|Criticism of science|Scientific misconduct}}

=== Metascience ===
[[Metascience]] is the study of research through the use of research methods. Also known as "research on research", it aims to reduce waste and increase the quality of research in all fields. Meta-research concerns itself with the detection of bias, methodological flaws, and other errors and inefficiencies. Among the finding of meta-research is a low rates of [[reproducibility]] across a large number of fields.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Ioannidis|first1=John P. A.|last2=Fanelli|first2=Daniele|last3=Dunne|first3=Debbie Drake|last4=Goodman|first4=Steven N.|date=2015-10-02|title=Meta-research: Evaluation and Improvement of Research Methods and Practices|journal=PLOS Biology|volume=13|issue=10|pages=–1002264|doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002264|pmid=26431313|issn=1545-7885|pmc=4592065 |doi-access=free }}</ref>

===Replication crisis===
{{See also|Publish or perish}}
{{Excerpt|Replication crisis|paragraphs=1|only=paragraphs|hat=no}}

=== Academic bias ===
{{See also|Politicization of science|Sexism in academia}}
{{Excerpt|Academic bias|paragraphs=1|only=paragraphs|hat=no}}

=== Funding bias ===
{{See also|Author-level metrics#Criticism|Impact factor#Criticism}}
{{Excerpt|Funding bias|paragraphs=1|only=paragraphs|hat=no}}

===Publication bias ===
{{See also|Conflicts of interest in academic publishing}}
{{Excerpt|Publication bias|paragraphs=1|only=paragraphs|hat=no}}

=== Non-western methods ===
{{See also|Indigenous science|Neo-colonial science}}
In many disciplines, Western methods of conducting research are predominant.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Reverby|first=Susan M.|date=1 April 2012|title=Zachary M. Schrag. Ethical Imperialism: Institutional Review Boards and the Social Sciences, 1965–2009. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. 2010. Pp. xii, 245. $45.00|journal=The American Historical Review|language=en|volume=117|issue=2|pages=484–485|doi=10.1086/ahr.117.2.484-a|issn=0002-8762}}</ref> Researchers are overwhelmingly taught Western methods of data collection and study. The increasing participation of [[indigenous peoples]] as researchers has brought increased attention to the [[scientific lacuna]] in [[culturally sensitive]] methods of data collection.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples|url=https://www.zedbooks.net/shop/book/decolonizing-methodologies/|last=Smith|first=Linda Tuhiwai|publisher=Zed Books|year=2012|isbn=978-1848139503|edition=2nd|location=London|access-date=24 October 2018|archive-date=25 October 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181025071033/https://www.zedbooks.net/shop/book/decolonizing-methodologies/|url-status=live}}</ref> Western methods of data collection may not be the most accurate or relevant for research on non-Western societies. For example, "[[Hua Oranga]]" was created as a criterion for psychological evaluation in [[Māori people|Māori]] populations, and is based on dimensions of mental health important to the Māori people – "taha wairua (the spiritual dimension), taha hinengaro (the mental dimension), taha tinana (the physical dimension), and taha whanau (the family dimension)".<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Stewart|first=Lisa|title=Commentary on Cultural Diversity Across the Pacific: The Dominance of Western Theories, Models, Research and Practice in Psychology|journal=Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology|volume=6|issue=1|pages=27–31|doi=10.1017/prp.2012.1|year=2012|doi-access=free}}</ref>

Even though Western dominance seems to be prominent in research, some scholars, such as [[Simon Marginson]], argue for "the need [for] a plural university world".<ref name="Marginson">{{Cite web|url=https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/sun-sets-on-western-dominance-as-east-asian-confucian-model-takes-lead/415300.article|title=Sun sets on Western dominance as East Asian Confucian model takes lead|date=24 February 2011|access-date=2016-08-29|archive-date=20 September 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160920190704/https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/sun-sets-on-western-dominance-as-east-asian-confucian-model-takes-lead/415300.article|url-status=live}}</ref> Marginson argues that the East Asian Confucian model could take over the Western model.

This could be due to changes in funding for research both in the East and the West. Focused on emphasizing educational achievement, East Asian cultures, mainly in China and South Korea, have encouraged the increase of funding for research expansion.<ref name="Marginson" /> In contrast, in the Western academic world, notably in the United Kingdom as well as in some state governments in the United States, funding cuts for university research have occurred, which some {{who|date=February 2017}} say may lead to the future decline of Western dominance in research.

=== Language ===
Research is often biased in the languages that are preferred ([[linguicism]]) and the geographic locations where research occurs.
Periphery scholars face the challenges of exclusion and linguicism in research and academic publication. As the great majority of mainstream academic journals are written in English, multilingual periphery scholars often must translate their work to be accepted to elite Western-dominated journals.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Canagarajah|first=A. Suresh|date=1 January 1996|title=From Critical Research Practice to Critical Research Reporting|jstor=3588146|journal=TESOL Quarterly|volume=30|issue=2|pages=321–331|doi=10.2307/3588146}}</ref> Multilingual scholars' influences from their native communicative styles can be assumed to be incompetence instead of difference.<ref name="Canagarajah">{{Cite journal|last=Canagarajah|first=Suresh|date=October 1996|title='Nondiscursive' Requirements in Academic Publishing, Material Resources of Periphery Scholars, and the Politics of Knowledge Production|journal=Written Communication|volume=13|issue=4|pages=435–472|doi=10.1177/0741088396013004001|s2cid=145250687}}</ref> Patterns of geographic bias also show a relationship with linguicism: countries whose official languages are French or Arabic are far less likely to be the focus of single-country studies than countries with different official languages. Within Africa, English-speaking countries are more represented than other countries.<ref name="Pepinsky"/>

===Generalizability===
{{see also|External validity}}
Generalization is the process of more broadly applying the valid results of one study.<ref>{{cite journal|doi=10.1212/WNL.0b013e318258f812|title=Generalizability: The trees, the forest, and the low-hanging fruit|year=2012|last1=Kukull|first1=W. A.|last2=Ganguli|first2=M.|journal=Neurology|volume=78|issue=23|pages=1886–1891|pmid=22665145|pmc=3369519}}</ref> Studies with a narrow scope can result in a lack of generalizability, meaning that the results may not be applicable to other populations or regions. In comparative politics, this can result from using a single-country study, rather than a study design that uses data from multiple countries. Despite the issue of generalizability, single-country studies have risen in prevalence since the late 2000s.<ref name="Pepinsky">{{cite journal|doi=10.1146/annurev-polisci-051017-113314|doi-access=free|title=The Return of the Single-Country Study|year=2019|last1=Pepinsky|first1=Thomas B.|journal=Annual Review of Political Science|volume=22|pages=187–203}}</ref> 

For comparative politics, Western countries are over-represented in single-country studies, with heavy emphasis on Western Europe, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Since 2000, Latin American countries have become more popular in single-country studies. In contrast, countries in [[Oceania]] and the [[Caribbean]] are the focus of very few studies.<ref name="Pepinsky"/> 

=== Publication peer review ===
{{See also|Open peer review}}
[[Peer review]] is a form of self-regulation by qualified members of a profession within the relevant field. Peer review methods are employed to maintain standards of quality, improve performance, and provide credibility. In academia, [[scholarly peer review]] is often used to determine an academic paper's suitability for publication. Usually, the peer review process involves experts in the same field who are consulted by editors to give a review of the scholarly works produced by a colleague of theirs from an unbiased and impartial point of view, and this is usually done free of charge. The tradition of peer reviews being done for free has however brought many pitfalls which are also indicative of why most peer reviewers decline many invitations to review.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.peerviewer.com/freelance-peer-review-scholarly-journals/|title=Peer Review of Scholarly Journal|website=www.PeerViewer.com|language=en-US|date=June 2017|access-date=29 July 2017|archive-date=30 July 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170730015618/http://peerviewer.com/freelance-peer-review-scholarly-journals/|url-status=live}}</ref> It was observed that publications from periphery countries rarely rise to the same elite status as those of North America and Europe.<ref name="Canagarajah" />

=== Open research ===
The [[open research]], [[open science]] and [[open access]] movements assume that all information generally deemed useful should be free and belongs to a "public domain", that of "humanity".<ref name="Christen">{{Cite journal|last=Christen|first=Kimberly|date=2012|title=Does Information Really Want to be Free? Indigenous Knowledge Systems and the Question of Openness|url=http://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/1618|journal=International Journal of Communication|volume=6|access-date=7 June 2017|archive-date=15 July 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170715032503/http://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/1618|url-status=live}}</ref> This idea gained prevalence as a result of Western colonial history and ignores alternative conceptions of knowledge circulation. For instance, most indigenous communities consider that access to certain information proper to the group should be determined by relationships.<ref name="Christen" /> There is alleged to be a double standard in the Western knowledge system. On the one hand, "digital right management" used to restrict access to personal information on social networking platforms is celebrated as a protection of privacy, while simultaneously when similar functions are used by cultural groups (i.e. indigenous communities) this is denounced as "access control" and reprehended as censorship.<ref name="Christen" />