p-hacking was used just to explore different results, but didn't publish it, would it still be an ethics issue?

The essay "Hack Your Way to Scientific Glory" (Simmons et al., 2011) explores the issue of data manipulation in scientific research. It emphasizes the technique of p-hacking, which is the process of looking for statistically significant findings by attempting different combinations of variables and analyses until a significant result is obtained, without stating the hypothesis or the analysis. The post also includes a program that allows users to alter data and generate statistically significant findings, even if they are not scientifically accurate.

After playing with the program and picking a political party, numerous data points were chosen, including voter turnout, income, and education levels. Any data that did not support the hypothesis or produced a significant result had to be eliminated (Wicherts et al., 2016). For example, in the case of income, data from high-income regions was chosen while data from low-income areas was omitted.

In this example, the x- and y-axes are not objective variables since they are adjusted to obtain a desired result. In other words, they are chosen to support a predetermined theory rather than to answer a specific study question (Sullivan & Feinn, 2012). P-hacking is immoral since it disrupts the scientific process by generating incorrect or misleading results. If the study findings are utilized to influence decisions that affect people's lives, it can result in wasted money, faulty policies, and even injury to individuals

Based on this example, it is evident that p-hacking is a severe problem that can jeopardize the integrity of research. It is critical to be aware of the possibility for bias and manipulation in research and to take precautions to assure the reliability of study findings. Pre-registering research hypotheses and analyses, doing power assessments to establish sample size, utilizing transparent and rigorous methodologies, and disclosing negative or inconclusive results are some actions that may be performed (Wicherts et al., 2016). To summarize, data tampering and p-hacking are serious problems that might jeopardize the validity and credibility of scientific research. To maintain the credibility of their findings, researchers must endeavor to conduct their study with honesty and transparency, employing rigorous procedures and pre-registering their hypotheses and analyses.. rEFERENCES Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological science, 22(11), 1359-1366. Sullivan, G. M., & Feinn, R. (2012). Using effect size-or why the p value is not enough. Journal of graduate medical education, 4(3), 279-282. Wicherts, J. M., Veldkamp, C. L., Augusteijn, H. E., Bakker, M., van Aert, R. C., & van Assen, M. A. (2016). Degrees of freedom in planning, running, analyzing, and reporting psychological studies: A checklist to avoid p-hacking. Frontiers in psychology, 7, 1832.