The grey zone: How questionable research practices are blurring the boundary between science and misconduct

"Normally, researchers follow the standard scientific practice of developing a hypothesis and then testing it against the facts." <- Isn't that a myth? I think you'll find that people like Gay-Lussac did experiments. Got data and noticed a pattern in the data. They called it a scientific law. Research proceeded hypothesis. The hypothesis was deduced from the data. A replication will test a hypothesis against facts. Even someone as intellectual as Einstein developed his theories in response to discoveries (AKA data). Other people's data. One prominent example of a QRP is “HARKing”, standing for “hypothesising after the results are known” <- Sounds exactly what Gay-Lussac and Einstein did! In contrast to Gay-Lussac deducing his law from the data, we have a proposal to outlaw that! Researchers are not expected to provide a hypothesis beforehand! Surely that's the very definition of bias. I put it to you that too many researchers already have too much bias. Too many preconceived ideas. Researchers should listen to what the data tells them. They should by more like J.M. Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"