“Choice-supportive bias” in science: Explanation and mitigation
Abstract
Mistakes in scientific research, their origins, and the possible solutions have always been noteworthy. On the other hand, researchers in some fields have focused on cognitive biases and their interventions in thinking and information processing. In this article, by bridging between these two issues, i.e., scientific research mistakes and cognitive bias, it will be first shown that scientific research requires scientists' choices in various stages such as subject selection, data treatment, theory determination, and technological design. Then, we show the involvement of choice-supportive bias in scientific inquiry as one of the potential cognitive limitations of science. Finally, three ways are discussed to mitigate the effects of this bias in science: more scores to self-criticism publications, recording of the shortcomings of the research by the researcher before publishing, and emphasizing control processes before researcher choices in scientific inquiry.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
There is ample evidence that scientists sometimes incorporate various biases into their study designs.
“There is ample evidence that scientists sometimes incorporate various biases into their study designs [44–47].”
From Autonomous artificial intelligence, scientific research, and human values (2026) · cites this paper as [46]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 85 · Cited by 12
- Authors
- Kafaee, M., Marhamati, H., & Gharibzadeh, S.
- Affiliations
- University of Shahrood (IR)
- Shahid Beheshti University (IR)
- Corresponding author
- Kafaee, Mahdi
- Venue
- Accountability in Research
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2021-01-12
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 528-543
- ISSN
- 0898-9621 (ISSN-L)
- 1545-5815
- OpenAlex
- W3119515099
- Cited by
- 12
- References
- 85
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2
- FWCI
- 1.17
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Accountability in Research (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
- Keywords
- cognitive biases, self-criticism, publication incentives, control processes, bias mitigation
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Publishing, Research Personnel, Scientific Misconduct, Bias
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review