The article by Norbert L. Kerr explores the practice of HARKing, which stands for Hypothesizing After the Results are Known. HARKing involves presenting post hoc hypotheses in a research report as if they were a priori hypotheses. The author defines HARKing and identifies several forms, including pure HARKing, HARKing with straw man arguments, suppressing loser hypotheses, and empirical inspiration. Kerr discusses the incentives for HARKing, such as the publication process, the ideal of efficient and engaging scientific communication, and cognitive biases like hindsight bias. He also examines the costs of HARKing, including the potential for translating Type I errors into theory and failing Popper's criterion of disconfirmability. The article concludes with suggestions for deterring HARKing and emphasizes the need for further research and discussion on this issue.The article by Norbert L. Kerr explores the practice of HARKing, which stands for Hypothesizing After the Results are Known. HARKing involves presenting post hoc hypotheses in a research report as if they were a priori hypotheses. The author defines HARKing and identifies several forms, including pure HARKing, HARKing with straw man arguments, suppressing loser hypotheses, and empirical inspiration. Kerr discusses the incentives for HARKing, such as the publication process, the ideal of efficient and engaging scientific communication, and cognitive biases like hindsight bias. He also examines the costs of HARKing, including the potential for translating Type I errors into theory and failing Popper's criterion of disconfirmability. The article concludes with suggestions for deterring HARKing and emphasizes the need for further research and discussion on this issue.