HARKing

[7] One view is that HARKing represents a form of accommodation in which researchers induce ad hoc hypotheses from their current results.

[1][3] Another view is that HARKing represents a form of prediction in which researchers deduce hypotheses from a priori theory and evidence after they know their current results.

He concluded that these costs "are either misconceived, misattributed to HARKing, lacking evidence, or that they do not take into account pre- and post-publication peer review and public availability to research materials and data.

[4] Hence, Bishop described HARKing as one of "the four horsemen of the reproducibility apocalypse," with publication bias, low statistical power, and p-hacking[12] being the other three.

[7][5][14] The preregistration of research hypotheses prior to data collection has been proposed as a method of identifying and deterring HARKing.

The first position is that all HARKing is unethical under all circumstances because it violates a fundamental principle of communicating scientific research honestly and completely.

[18] A third position is that HARKing is acceptable provided that hypotheses are explicitly deduced from a priori theory and evidence, as explained in a theoretical rationale, and readers have access to the relevant research data and materials.