Final answer:
Malhotra would most strongly object to a scenario where a research team excludes portions of null data when reporting results, considering it a form of scientific misconduct. Such exclusion contradicts the philosophy of falsifiability essential to science and could be seen as a type of statistical fraud.
Step-by-step explanation:
Out of the hypothetical situations presented, Malhotra would most strongly object to option b, which states: A research team excludes the portion of data that produced null results when reporting its results in a journal. This practice is considered a form of scientific misconduct as it involves cherry-picking data to present only findings that support the hypothesis, leaving out null or contradictory results that are essential for an objective scientific understanding.
Malhotra would argue that excluding null results undermines the scientific method's philosophy of falsifiability and the critical practice of distinguishing genuine patterns from noise, as well as potentially contributing to statistical fraud. Malhotra would likely be less critical of options a, c, and d, as they do not directly imply data manipulation or scientific misconduct.
Publishing null results in lesser journals or unknowingly repeating a study that produced null results does not necessarily contravene scientific integrity. Performing a follow-up study to expand on null results is actually in line with good scientific practice, as it could provide further insights and help in understanding the phenomenon being studied.