HARKing: hypothesizing after the results are known.
HARKing: hypothesizing after the results are known.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1207/s15327957pspr0203_4
复制
发表时间：
1998-01-01
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Kerr, N L
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Kerr, N L
本文探讨了科学传播中的一种称为 HARKing（已知结果后进行假设）的实践。 HARKing 的定义是在研究报告中提出事后假设（即基于结果的假设），就好像它实际上是先验假设一样。识别了多种形式的窃听行为，并提供了调查数据，表明至少某些形式的窃听行为被广泛实施，并且被广泛认为是不适当的。我找出了科学家们可能会倾听的几个原因。然后我讨论了科学家不应该倾听的几个原因。人们承认，HARKing 的成本是否超过其收益的问题是一个复杂的问题，应该通过研究、公开讨论和辩论来解决。为了帮助激发这样的讨论（以及对于像我这样怀疑监听的成本确实超过其收益的人），我在文章的结尾提出了一些阻止监听的建议。
This article considers a practice in scientific communication termed HARKing (Hypothesizing After the Results are Known). HARKing is defined as presenting a post hoc hypothesis (i.e., one based on or informed by one's results) in one's research report as i f it were, in fact, an a priori hypotheses. Several forms of HARKing are identified and survey data are presented that suggests that at least some forms of HARKing are widely practiced and widely seen as inappropriate. I identify several reasons why scientists might HARK. Then I discuss several reasons why scientists ought not to HARK. It is conceded that the question of whether HARKing ' s costs exceed its benefits is a complex one that ought to be addressed through research, open discussion, and debate. To help stimulate such discussion (and for those such as myself who suspect that HARKing's costs do exceed its benefits), I conclude the article with some suggestions for deterring HARKing.