False Positives in Scientific Research

Libgober, Jonathan

doi:10.2139/ssrn.2617130

Cited by 23 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The result of t-statistics relates to the microeconomic decision models of statistical testing (Manski 2004, Tetenov 2016. The broad conclusion that publication bias needs not be socially detrimental is consistent with papers with various reasoning, such as incentives for endogenous information acquisition with biased researchers (Glaeser 2006, Libgober 2015, Henry and Ottaviani 2014, or limited number of studies readers may process (de Winter and Happee 2012) or journal space for publication (Frankel and Kasy 2018). In contrast, this paper derives the result even when information is exogenously given, even when researchers are unbiased, and even when there is no limit or cost of communication.…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 55%

“…Some even consider it as a form of scientific misconduct (Chalmers 1990). Building on such interpretations, theorists have analyzed the design of researchers who seek publications (Glaeser 2008, Henry and Ottaviani 2014, Libgober 2015. Authoritative organizations such as the American Statistical Association (Wasserstein and Lazar, 2016) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (2016) have issued official statements to encourage reporting of negative results.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Publication Bias under Aggregation Frictions: Theory, Evidence, and a New Correction Method

Furukawa

2019

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper questions the conventional wisdom that publication bias must result from the biased preferences of researchers. When readers only compare the number of positive and negative results of papers to make their decisions, even unbiased researchers will omit noisy null results and inflate some marginally insignificant estimates. Nonetheless, the equilibrium with such publication bias is socially optimal. The model predicts that published non-positive results are either precise null results or noisy but extreme negative results. This paper shows this prediction holds with some data, and proposes a new stem-based bias correction method that is robust to this and other publication selection processes.

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 55%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Publication Bias under Aggregation Frictions: Theory, Evidence, and a New Correction Method

Furukawa

2019

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We should note that there is also a relatively small amount of theoretical economic research modeling the researcher and publication process, includingHenry (2009), which predicts that, under certain conditions, more research effort is undertaken when not all research is observable, if such costs can be incurred to demonstrate investigator honesty. See alsoHenry and Ottaviani (2014) andLibgober (2015).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Transparency, Reproducibility, and the Credibility of Economics Research

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:There is growing interest in enhancing research transparency and reproducibility in economics and other scientific fields. We survey existing work on these topics within economics, and discuss the evidence suggesting that publication bias, inability to replicate, and specification searching remain widespread in the discipline. We next discuss recent progress in this area, including through improved research design, study registration and pre-analysis plans, disclosure standards, and open sharing of data and materials, drawing on experiences in both economics and other social sciences. We discuss areas where consensus is emerging on new practices, as well as approaches that remain controversial, and speculate about the most effective ways to make economics research more credible in the future. 1 We thank the editor Steven Durlauf and four anonymous referees for useful comments.

show abstract

“…Tetenov (2016) and Yoder (2018) study how a principal can screen across heterogeneous experimenters with privately known types. Libgober (2015) considers a setting in which study findings are observable, but the study design that led to a finding may be obscured.…”

Section: A Model With Researcher Incentivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Which Findings Should Be Published?

Frankel

Kasy

2022

American Economic Journal: Microeconomics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Given a scarcity of journal space, what is the optimal rule for whether an empirical finding should be published? Suppose publications inform the public about a policy-relevant state. Then journals should publish extreme results, meaning ones that move beliefs sufficiently. This optimal rule may take the form of a one- or two-sided test comparing a point estimate to the prior mean, with critical values determined by a cost-benefit analysis. Consideration of future studies may additionally justify the publication of precise null results. If one insists that standard inference remain valid, however, publication must not select on the study’s findings. (JEL D61, D82, D83, L82)

show abstract

False Positives in Scientific Research

Cited by 23 publications

References 29 publications

Publication Bias under Aggregation Frictions: Theory, Evidence, and a New Correction Method

Publication Bias under Aggregation Frictions: Theory, Evidence, and a New Correction Method

Transparency, Reproducibility, and the Credibility of Economics Research

Which Findings Should Be Published?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About