Agnotology, Trustworthiness, and Uncertainty in the Presentation of Research Findings

As editors and scholars, we have a few serious concerns about the presentation of research findings in refereed journals. These concerns range from a lack of theoretical, research, or contextual foundation to misinterpretation of information to a misunderstanding of the assumptions or limitations of specific research methods. These concerns are fueled by what we consider to be unethical scientific practices such as plagiarism, confirmation or citation bias, piecemeal or “salami-slicing” presentation, “cherry-picking” statements, and unchecked or, possibly, unread references. The pressures to publish or to obtain research funding, the overwhelming responsibilities of professors in university settings, or even an insufficient understanding of information in manuscripts can lead to the “cutting of corners” in scholarly research endeavors. Subsequently, this can not only cast doubt on the veracity of reported results in professional fields, but also mislead educators and practitioners by taking advantage of their limited understanding of the research process. We discussed these issues with the hope of encouraging scholars to avoid or minimize these pitfalls and to maintain the integrity of published scholarly works.