Is the validity of positivistic management accounting research exposed to questionable research practices?

A recent paper in Management Accounting Research (MAR) claimed that the validity of positivistic management accounting research (PMAR) has increased significantly during the last four decades. We argue that this is a misrepresentation of reality as the current crisis of irreproducible statistical findings is not addressed. The reliability and validity of statistical findings are under an increasing pressure due to the phenomenon of Questionable Research Practices (QRPs). It is a phenomenon argued to increase the ratio of false-positives through a distortion of the hypothetico-deductive method in favour of a researcher’s own hypothesis. This phenomenon is known to be widespread in the social sciences. We therefore conduct a meta-analysis on susceptibility of QRPs on the publication practices of PMAR, and our findings give rise to reasons for concern as there are indications of a publication practice that (unintentionally) incentivises the use of QRPs.  It is therefore rational to assume that the ratio of false-positives is well-above the conventional five-per cent ratio. To break the bad equilibrium of QRPs, we suggest three different solutions and discuss their practical viability