In our world, it's considered malpractice if you have the option to include double blinding in your study design, but opt not to for convenience.
In some alternate universe, it is considered malpractice for those who design the study to be the same group that runs the study.
I don't think we can get there from here, but if we had a core track of theorists who designed studies, and a second equally prestigious track of practitioners, who independently tested and ran studies, experimental science would be much more rigorous.
Your prestige should be tied to your ability to identify novel experiments to try, or in rigorous testing procedures, never tied to your ability to shape data to make your claims appear grand.
In some alternate universe, it is considered malpractice for those who design the study to be the same group that runs the study.
I don't think we can get there from here, but if we had a core track of theorists who designed studies, and a second equally prestigious track of practitioners, who independently tested and ran studies, experimental science would be much more rigorous.
Your prestige should be tied to your ability to identify novel experiments to try, or in rigorous testing procedures, never tied to your ability to shape data to make your claims appear grand.