2017
DOI: 10.4103/ija.ija_280_17
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The file drawer effect: A call for meticulous methodology and tolerance for non-significant results

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Further, focusing on published findings may enhance the likelihood of results being influenced by the "file drawer problem". The "file drawer problem" is a well-documented phenomenon that brings attention to the fact that non-significant findings are much more likely to remain unpublished than significant findings (Nagarajan et al, 2017). Second, similar to other content analytic approaches of this nature, the findings are limited to information reported in article write-ups.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Further, focusing on published findings may enhance the likelihood of results being influenced by the "file drawer problem". The "file drawer problem" is a well-documented phenomenon that brings attention to the fact that non-significant findings are much more likely to remain unpublished than significant findings (Nagarajan et al, 2017). Second, similar to other content analytic approaches of this nature, the findings are limited to information reported in article write-ups.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Reporting bias is a prevalent issue in systematic reviews and meta-analyses which is characterized by researchers publishing only statistically significant, or desired, results. 28,80 Also termed the file drawer problem, it implies that researchers will be more likely to submit or successfully publish positive or statistically significant results. 28,80 In studies of moderators and mediators, this bias may be even more inflated as researchers may prefer to publish their findings only when significant interactions (i.e., moderation) and direct or indirect effects (i.e., mediation) are observed.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This could indicate a possible publication bias, often referred to as the file drawer problem (e.g., Nagarajan et al, 2017; see also Friese, & Frankenbach, 2019), which has been shown to be common in cognitive neuroscience (Huber et al, 2019). However, by considering the fact that almost half of the identified studies explored a different research question, in addition to the small number of identified studies, no robust conclusions regarding this kind of bias can be drawn.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%