Null Effects and Publication Bias in Special Education Research

Abstract

Negative results are just what I want. They're just as valuable to me as positive results. I can never find the thing that does the job best until I find the ones that don't.-credited to Thomas A. Edison (see Cumberland, 2015)

Open Science and Radical Solutions for Diversity, Equity and Quality in Research: A Literature Review of Different Research Schools, Philosophies and Frameworks and Their Potential Impact on Science and Education

“…Registered reports enable more publications of null findings: Allen and Mehler (2019) have compared registered reports against traditional studies and found that they publish more null findings. Research studies with null findings are important for the scientific progress and avoid duplications of studies but are not often reported and published or not even submitted due to reporting and publication bias, in particular, in social sciences (Fanelli, 2010;Sterling, 1959, Cook & Therrien, 2017Franco, Malhotra & Simonovits, 2014;Greenwald, 1975). Furthermore, journals are often not accepting null findings leading to research evidences and literature basis that are exaggerating false-positive findings or positive effects (Ferguson & Heene, 2012;Ioannidis, 2012;Munafo et al, 2017).…”

Assessment of Factors Causing Bias in Marketing- Related Publications

“…It can always be assumed that the lack of data is accidental, but the reason for that is bias. Negative research findings that are likely to outweigh the number of positive findings continue to be sidelined, not published in unused files [9,12,50,51,92]. Fanelli [6] examined the situation of negative and insignificant results in a study.…”

“…Different scholars [6,10,11] have confirmed that bias is uneven. The bias in research could be manifested in a number of ways, as found in literature [5,[12][13][14]. Publication or literature biases can be considered among the most frequently mentioned and discussed.…”

Addressing publication bias in the anatomical literature by reporting zero prevalence of bicuspid aortic valve

“…Publication bias is welldocumented in medical research, where negative results from clinical trials are less likely to be published than positive findings. The disproportionate publication of statistically significant results may distort information available in the literature, which could influence clinical practice (Cook and Therrien, 2017). For example, comprehensive risks and benefits of vaccines and new therapies may not be accurately described in the literature if negative results are not published in addition to positive findings (Howes, 2017).…”

“…Although the prevalence of BAV is 0%, the author considers it relevant to disseminate these results, rather than file them away in the bottom desk drawer and forget about them. Inclusion of studies with no findings of variant anatomy are important as the information they provide may affect the prevalence rate cited in the literature, as well as outcomes of meta-analyses (Cook and Therrien, 2017). For example, were this study to be included in the published literature, the reported prevalence of BAS would change from 0.5% to 2%, to 0% to 2%, alerting anatomists and clinicians to the possibility that they may not observe this variation, particularly in small samples.…”