Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). *A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM)* (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.

Hall, J., & Martin, B. R. (2019). Towards a taxonomy of research misconduct: The case of business school research. *Research Policy, 48*, 414–427.

Harvey, C. R. (2017). Presidential address: The scientific outlook in financial economics. *Journal of Finance, 72*(4), 1399–1440.

Hill, A. D., Bolton, J. F., & White, M. A. (2020). A call to find knowledge in our non-findings. *Strategic Organization, 18*(4), 645–654.

Hollenbeck, J. R., & Wright, P. M. (2017). Harking, sharking, and tharking: Making the case for post hoc analysis of scientific data. *Journal of Management, 43*(1), 5–18.

Honig, B., Lampel, J., Siegel, D., & Drnevich, P. (2014). Ethics in the production and dissemination of management research: Institutional failure or individual fallibility? *Journal of Management Studies, 51*(1), 118–142.

John, L. K., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2012). Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. *Psychological Science, 23*(5), 524–532.

Kepes, S., Bennett, A. A., & McDaniel, M. A. (2014). Evidence-based management and the trustworthiness of our cumulative scientific knowledge: Implications for teaching, research, and practice. *Academy of Management Learning & Education, 13*(3), 446–466.

Kerr, N. L. (1998). HARKing: Hypothesizing after the results are known. *Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2*(3), 196–217.

Khan, M. J., & Trønnes, P. C. (2019). p-hacking in experimental audit research. *Behavioral Research in Accounting, 30*(1), 119–131.

Kline, R. B. (2016). *Principles and practice of structural equation modeling* (4th ed.). Guilford Press.

Krishna, A., & Peter, S. M. (2018). Questionable research practices in student final theses – Prevalence, attitudes, and the role of the supervisor’s perceived attitudes. *PLoS One, 13*(8), e0203470.

Latan, H. (2018). PLS path modeling in hospitality and tourism research: The golden age and days of future past. In F. Ali, S. M. Rasoolimanesh, & C. Cobanoglu (Eds.), *Applying partial least squares in tourism and hospitality research* (pp. 53–83). Bingley.

Latan, H., Chiappetta Jabbour, C. J., Lopes de Sousa Jabbour, A. B. (2021). To blow or not to blow the whistle: The role of rationalization in the perceived seriousness of threats and wrongdoing. *Journal of Business Ethics, 169*, 517–535.

Latan, H., Ringle, C. M., & Chiappetta Jabbour, C. J. (2018). Whistle-blowing intentions among public accountants in Indonesia: Testing for the moderation effects. *Journal of Business Ethics, 152*, 573–588.

Leung, K. (2011). Presenting post hoc hypotheses as a priori: Ethical and theoretical issues. *Management and Organization Review, 7*(3), 471–479.

Linder, C., & Farahbakhsh, S. (2020). Unfolding the black box of questionable research practices: Where is the line between acceptable and unacceptable practices? *Business Ethics Quarterly, 30*(3), 335–360.

Lohmöller, J.-B. (1989). Basic principles of model building: Specification, estimation and evaluation. In H. Wold (Ed.), *Theoretical empiricism: A general rationale for scientific model-building* (pp. 1–25). Paragon House.

Macháček, V., & Srholec, M. (2021). Predatory publishing in Scopus: Evidence on cross-country differences. *Scientometrics, 126*, 1897–1921.

Mazzola, J. J., & Deuling, J. K. (2013). Forgetting what we learned as graduate students: HARKing and selective outcome reporting in I-O journal articles. *Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 6*(3), 279–284.

Miller, J. (2017). Hypothesis testing in the real world. *Educational and Psychological Measurement, 77*(4), 663–672.

Motyl, M., Demos, A. P., Carsel, T. S., Hanson, B. E., Melton, Z. J., Mueller, A. B., et al. (2017). The state of social and personality science: Rotten to the core, not so bad, getting better, or getting worse? *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13* (1), 34–58.

Murphy, K. R., & Aguinis, H. (2019). HARKing: How badly can cherry-picking and question trolling produce bias in published results? *Journal of Business and Psychology, 34*, 1–17.

Necker, S. (2014). Scientific misbehavior in economics. *Research Policy, 43*, 1747–1759.

Noonan, R., & Wold, H. (1986). Partial least squares path analysis. *The International Encyclopedia of Education, 7*, 3769–3775.

Nosek, B. A., & Lakens, D. (2014). Editorial: Registered reports - A method to increase the credibility of published results. *Social Psychology, 45*(3), 137–141.

Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). *Psychometric theory* (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.

O'Boyle, E. H., Banks, G. C., & Gonzalez-Mulé, E. (2017). The chrysalis effect: How ugly initial results metamorphose into beautiful articles. *Journal of Management, 43*(2), 376–399.

Olsson-Collentine, A., van Assen, M. A. L. M., & Hartgerink, C. H. J. (2019). The prevalence of marginally significant results in psychology over time. *Psychological Science, 30*(4), 576–586.

Pratt, T. C., Reisig, M. D., Holtfreter, K., & Golladay, K. A. (2019). Scholars' preferred solutions for research misconduct: Results from a survey of faculty members at America's top 100 research universities. *Ethics & Behavior, 29*(7), 510–530.

Pritschet, L., Powell, D., & Horne, Z. (2016). Marginally significant effects as evidence for hypotheses: Changing attitudes over four decades. *Psychological Science, 27*(7), 1036–1042.

Rabelo, A. L. A., Farias, J. E. M., Sarmet, M. M., Joaquim, T. C. R., Hoersting, R. C., Victorino, L., et al. (2020). Questionable research practices among Brazilian psychological researchers: Results from a replication study and an international comparison. *International Journal of Psychology, 55*(4), 674–683.

Rajah-Kanagasabai, C. J., & Roberts, L. D. (2015). Predicting self-reported research misconduct and questionable research practices in university students using an augmented Theory of Planned Behavior. *Frontiers in Psychology, 6*, 535.

Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Becker, J.-M. (2015). SmartPLS 3. In. Boenningstedt: SmartPLS GmbH.

Rubin, M. (2017). When does HARKing hurt? Identifying when different types of undisclosed post hoc hypothesizing harm scientific progress. *Review of General Psychology, 21*, 308–320.

Savalei, V., & Dunn, E. (2015). Is the call to abandon p-values the red herring of the replicability crisis? *Frontiers in Psychology, 6*, 245.

Schimmack, U. (2012). The ironic effect of significant results on the credibility of multiple-study articles. *Psychological Methods, 17*(4), 551–566.

Schwartz, M. S. (2016). Ethical decision-making theory: An integrated approach. *Journal of Business Ethics, 139*(4), 755–776.

Shaw, J. D. (2017). From the editors: Advantages of starting with theory. *Academy of Management Journal, 60*(3), 819–822.

Sijtsma, K. (2016). Playing with data—Or how to discourage questionable research practices and stimulate researchers to do things right. *Psychometrika, 81*, 1–15.

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.

Simonsohn, U., Nelson, L. D., & Simmons, J. P. (2014). p-curve and effect size: Correcting for publication bias using only significant results. *Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9*(6), 666–681.

Steen, R. G., Casadevall, A., & Fang, F. C. (2013). Why has the number of scientific retractions increased? *PLoS One, 8*(7), e68397.
Sterling, T. D. (1959). Publication decisions and their possible effects on inferences drawn from tests of significance—or vice versa. *Journal of the American Statistical Association*, 54(285), 30–34.

Sterling, T. D., Rosenbaum, W. L., & Weinkam, J. J. (1995). Publication decisions revisited: The effect of the outcome of statistical tests on the decision to publish and vice versa. *The American Statistician*, 49(1), 108–112.

Stone, T. H., Jawahar, I. M., & Kisamore, J. L. (2009). Using the theory of planned behavior and cheating justifications to predict academic misconduct. *Career Development International*, 14(3), 221–241.

Stricker, J., & Günther, A. (2019). Scientific misconduct in psychology: A systematic review of prevalence estimates and new empirical data. *Zeitschrift Für Psychologie*, 227(1), 53–63.

Vogel, D., & Homberg, F. (2021). P-hacking, p-curves, and the PSM–performance relationship: Is there evidential value? *Public Administration Review*, 81(2), 191–20.

Wigboldus, D. H. J., & Dotsch, R. (2016). Encourage playing with data and discourage questionable reporting practices. *Psychometrika*, 81(1), 27–32.

Wooldridge, J. M. (2020). *Introductory econometrics: A modern approach* (7th ed.). Cengage Learning.

Yamada, Y. (2018). How to crack pre-registration: Toward transparent and open science. *Frontiers in Psychology*, 9, 1831.

**Publisher's Note** Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Sterling, T. D. (1959). Publication decisions and their possible effects on inferences drawn from tests of significance—or vice versa. *Journal of the American Statistical Association*, 54(285), 30–34.

Sterling, T. D., Rosenbaum, W. L., & Weinkam, J. J. (1995). Publication decisions revisited: The effect of the outcome of statistical tests on the decision to publish and vice versa. *The American Statistician*, 49(1), 108–112.

Stone, T. H., Jawahar, I. M., & Kisamore, J. L. (2009). Using the theory of planned behavior and cheating justifications to predict academic misconduct. *Career Development International*, 14(3), 221–241.

Stricker, J., & Günther, A. (2019). Scientific misconduct in psychology: A systematic review of prevalence estimates and new empirical data. *Zeitschrift Für Psychologie*, 227(1), 53–63.

Vogel, D., & Homberg, F. (2021). P-hacking, p-curves, and the PSM-performance relationship: Is there evidential value? *Public Administration Review*, 81(2), 191–20.

Wigboldus, D. H. J., & Dotsch, R. (2016). Encourage playing with data and discourage questionable reporting practices. *Psychometrika*, 81(1), 27–32.

Wooldridge, J. M. (2020). *Introductory econometrics: A modern approach* (7th ed.). Cengage Learning.

Yamada, Y. (2018). How to crack pre-registration: Toward transparent and open science. *Frontiers in Psychology*, 9, 1831.

**Publisher's Note** Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.