@article{bibcite_956,
  author = {Norbert L. Kerr},
  title = {HARKing: Hypothesizing After the Results are Known},
  abstract = {This article considers a practice in scientific communication termed HARKing (Hypothesizing After the Results are Known). HARKing is defined as presenting a post hoc hypothesis (i.e., one based on or informed by one{\textquoteright}s results) in one{\textquoteright}s research report as if it were, in fact, an a priori hypotheses. Several forms of HARKing are identified and survey data are presented that suggests that at least some forms of HARKing are widely practiced and widely seen as inappropriate. I identify several reasons why scientists might HARK. Then I discuss several reasons why scientists ought not to HARK. It is conceded that the question of whether HARKing{\textquoteright}s costs exceed its benefits is a complex one that ought to be addressed through research, open discussion, and debate. To help stimulate such discussion (and for those such as myself who suspect that HARKing{\textquoteright}s costs do exceed its benefits), I conclude the article with some suggestions for deterring HARKing.},
  year = {1998},
  journal = {Personality and Social Psychology Review},
  volume = {2},
  pages = {196-217},
  month = {1998-08-01},
  issn = {1088-8683},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0203_4},
  doi = {10.1207/s15327957pspr0203_4},
  language = {en},
}