Effect of positive findings on submission and acceptance rates: A note on meta-analysis bias.

Coursol, Allan; Wagner, Edwin E.

doi:10.1037/0735-7028.17.2.136

Cited by 144 publications

(111 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

108

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This result could indicate publication bias, in which academic journals have the propensity to only publish significant findings. Alternatively, significant funnel plot asymmetry could also stem from authors not submitting papers with nonsignificant findings (Coursol & Wagner, 1986). Often, results that fail to meet the acceptable significance threshold do not proceed in the publication process, which leads to what is known as the "file-drawer problem."…”

Section: Biasmentioning

confidence: 99%

A meta-analysis of the survival-processing advantage in memory

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Biasmentioning

confidence: 99%

A meta-analysis of the survival-processing advantage in memory

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The problem of validitythreatening publication bias in meta-analytic results drew early attention in the development of meta-analytic methods in the 1970s and has since then shown to be a widespread problem (cf. Atkinson, Furlong, & Wampold, 1982;Coursol & Wagner, 1986;Dickersin & Min, 1993;Levine, Asada, & Carpenter, 2009;Scherer, Langenberg, & Von Elm, 2007;Sterling, Rosenbaum, & Weinkam, 1995;Thornton & Lee, 2000). To illustrate the extent of the problem, consider Fanelli (2010b, p. 4) who found that ".…”

Section: Is Publication Bias An Overstated Problem In Meta-analysis?mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Vast Graveyard of Undead Theories

Ferguson

Heene

2012

Perspect Psychol Sci

505

233

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Publication bias remains a controversial issue in psychological science. The tendency of psychological science to avoid publishing null results produces a situation that limits the replicability assumption of science, as replication cannot be meaningful without the potential acknowledgment of failed replications. We argue that the field often constructs arguments to block the publication and interpretation of null results and that null results may be further extinguished through questionable researcher practices. Given that science is dependent on the process of falsification, we argue that these problems reduce psychological science's capability to have a proper mechanism for theory falsification, thus resulting in the promulgation of numerous "undead" theories that are ideologically popular but have little basis in fact.

show abstract

“…Studies found that manuscripts without significant results are both less likely to be submitted and less likely to be accepted for publication (Cooper, DeNeve, & Charlton, 1997;Coursol & Wagner, 1986;Dickersin, Chan, Chalmers, Sacks, & Smith, 1987;Epstein, 1990;Franco, Malhotra, & Simonovits, 2014;Greenwald, 1975;Mahoney, 1977).…”

Section: Bias and Errorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research on Research: A Meta-Scientific Study of Problems and Solutions in Psychological Science

Nuijten¹

2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARY DOCTORAL DISSERTATION: Psychology is facing a “replication crisis”. Many psychological findings could not be replicated in novel samples, which lead to the growing concern that many published findings are overly optimistic or even false. In this dissertation, we investigated potential indicators of problems in the published psychological literature. In Part I of this dissertation, we looked at inconsistencies in reported statistical results in published psychology papers. To facilitate our research, we developed the free tool statcheck; a “spellchecker” for statistics. In Part II, we investigated bias in published effect sizes. We showed that in the presence of publication bias, the overestimation of effects can become worse if you combine studies. Indeed, in meta-analyses from the social sciences we found strong evidence that published effects are overestimated. These are worrying findings, and it is important to think about concrete solutions to improve the quality of psychological research. Some of the solutions we propose are preregistration, replication, and transparency. We argue that to select the best strategies to improve psychological science, we need research on research: meta-research.

show abstract

Effect of positive findings on submission and acceptance rates: A note on meta-analysis bias.

Cited by 144 publications

References 15 publications

A meta-analysis of the survival-processing advantage in memory

A meta-analysis of the survival-processing advantage in memory

A Vast Graveyard of Undead Theories

Research on Research: A Meta-Scientific Study of Problems and Solutions in Psychological Science

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About