Can quality be harmful? As surprising as it may sound to some of us, there are many examples when more rigorous research practices are perceived as potentially harmful.  For example, designing and executing a study with adequate protection against risks of bias may reduce our chances to get “positive” results that, in turn, reduces the chances to get the results published in a good journal and/or to get the next round of funding. Or, more generally, investing time and efforts into research quality takes time and resources away from other activities that may be perceived as more urgent or more critical (e.g., writing a manuscript or a grant application).

In contrast to such “harms”, benefits of investing into quality are less obvious and, in most cases, have no direct or immediate positive impact. 

Yet, there are at least individuals and organizations who decided in favor of research quality. 

We launched a small project aiming to collect advice and experience from these individuals and organizations in order to build (and disseminate) a catalog of practical recommendations and tips how one tilt the balance to:

• Reduce (perceived) harm of research rigor
• Reveal benefits of rigorous practices, reward those who achieve them

We invite you to join this project AND ask you to help disseminating information about this project to those who may have useful tips or relevant experience.

For more information, please contact Renza.