Summary: A recent study examines the largely hidden practices involved in student-led data collection for research projects. By surveying both students and supervisors, the study uncovers instances of questionable and potentially fraudulent behavior during data collection and highlights implications for research integrity.
Although most students reported clean practices, a meaningful minority admitted to problematic actions such as deleting data, participating in their own studies, or allowing participants who already knew the hypotheses to take part. These findings emphasize the need for clearer communication, stronger supervision, and broader adoption of Open Science practices to safeguard the reliability of student-generated data.
Key Facts:
- The research team surveyed 473 psychology students and 199 supervisors at German-speaking universities to assess behaviors during student data collection.
- A range of questionable and fraudulent behaviors was reported, including data deletion, self-participation in studies, and permitting participants who knew the hypotheses to take part.
- The authors recommend improving supervisor-student communication and embedding Open Science principles in teaching to enhance data quality and research integrity.
Source: Polish Association of Social Psychology
Background
Open Science initiatives—such as preregistration and open sharing of materials and data—have made research more transparent and have improved accountability in many stages of the scientific process. However, the process of collecting data, especially when carried out by students, often remains opaque. Practices that occur during data collection are frequently undetectable after the fact, creating a weak point in the chain of research quality control.
Examples of hard-to-detect problematic behaviors include telling participants the exact hypotheses before testing, instructing participants how to respond, fabricating responses, or deleting inconvenient observations. These actions can undermine the validity of data sets that may later be reused by other students, supervisors, or researchers in publications and meta-analyses.
Because student-collected data are often reused, the integrity of those data matters beyond the original project. Yet there has been limited empirical evidence about how often such behaviors occur during student projects and which situational factors influence them. Prior studies have concentrated more on questionable research practices at the analysis and reporting stages than on data collection itself.
Study aims and methods
A team of psychology students and researchers based at LMU Munich set out to shed light on the “black box” of student data collection. Led by Dr. Marlene Altenmüller, the study asked: Can we trust student data? The team surveyed 473 psychology students and 199 supervisors at German-speaking universities, asking about 17 behaviors that range from questionable to clearly fraudulent.
Students answered whether they had engaged in practices such as knowingly including participants who were already familiar with the hypotheses, taking part in their own surveys, or deleting or fabricating data. The survey also collected information about situational influences, such as supervisory expectations, perceived pressures, and whether students knew their data might be used by others.
Supervisors completed a parallel questionnaire reporting their perceptions of how frequently students engage in problematic practices and how they believed students experienced supervision and project expectations.
Key findings
Results provide a mixed picture. A majority (64%) of students reported no problematic behaviors during data collection. Nevertheless, notable shares admitted to specific issues: 26% allowed participants to take part despite those participants already knowing the hypothesis, 8% reported having taken part in their own study, and 4% acknowledged deleting data. Overall, these behaviors ranged from arguably questionable to outright fraudulent.
Supervisors’ perceptions largely matched students’ reports on average, but supervisors tended to underestimate the prevalence of certain behaviors—most notably self-participation and data deletion—suggesting a gap between supervisors’ expectations and actual student practices.
Implications and recommendations
The authors argue that reducing problematic data collection behaviors requires addressing the drivers behind them: perceived pressures, available opportunities, and rationalizations that make such behavior seem acceptable. Embedding Open Science principles in course design and supervision can help by making expectations about data use and transparency explicit. In particular, students who knew their data would be reused by others reported lower rates of problematic behavior, indicating that awareness and accountability matter.
Clear, proactive communication between supervisors and students about expectations, intended uses of data, and ethical standards appears to be one of the most effective measures to improve data quality. Supervisors are encouraged to treat student projects not only as pedagogical exercises but also as potential contributions to the research record.
“Supervisors should maybe consider how empirical student projects may not only be an opportunity for teaching, but also for research,” the authors conclude, highlighting a constructive path forward for integrating training and integrity.
About this neuroscience research news
Author: Dimitar Boyadzhiev
Source: Polish Association of Social Psychology
Contact: Dimitar Boyadzhiev – Polish Association of Social Psychology
Image: The image is credited to Neuroscience News
Original Research: Closed access.
“Evading Open Science: The Black Box of Student Data Collection” by Marlene Sophie Altenmüller et al. Social Psychology Bulletin
Abstract
Evading Open Science: The Black Box of Student Data Collection
Open Science has driven improvements in transparency at several stages of the research process, such as preregistration and open materials. Yet behaviors during data collection remain difficult to monitor and can pose serious threats to the validity of psychological research, particularly when researchers use data collected by others—often students.
This registered report examines the perspectives of both students and supervisors on questionable research practices and misconduct during student data collection. While most students did not report engaging in problematic behaviors, several practices—ranging from questionable to clearly fraudulent—appear relatively common, including revealing hypotheses to participants and self-participation in surveys.
The study maps reported and suspected practices, explores potential drivers using the fraud triangle framework (pressures, opportunities, rationalizations), and assesses perceptions about the suitability of student-generated data for further scholarly use. It also investigates how the student-supervisor relationship and Open Science practices influence behavior.
Overall, the findings indicate that student project data can be scientifically valuable, and that fostering transparent communication and explicit expectations between supervisors and students can further enhance the trustworthiness and utility of these data.