Scientific citations favor positive results: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Duyx, Bram; Urlings, Miriam; Swaen, Gerard M. H.; Bouter, Lex M.; Zeegers, Maurice P.

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.06.002

Cited by 135 publications

(123 citation statements)

References 63 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

106

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…citation bias is present, with the most convincing evidence from the field of biomedical sciences [12]. A meta-analysis in our review showed that positive studies are approximately two times more likely to be cited than negative studies.…”

Section: What Is the Implication And What Should Change Now?mentioning

confidence: 56%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Citation bias in the literature on dietary trans fatty acids and serum cholesterol

Urlings

Duyx

Swaen

et al. 2019

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Balanced citations are a necessary condition for a sound development of scientific knowledge, whereas selective citations may bias scientific consensus. In this study, we assess which determinants influenced the likelihood of being cited in the literature on trans fatty acids and cholesterol. Study Design and Setting: We conducted a citation network analysis of the literature concerning trans fats and low density cholesterol and high density cholesterol. Each publication was scored on various potential determinants of citation, such as study outcome, study design, sample size, journal impact factor, and funding source. We applied random effect logistic regression to identify determinants of citation. Results: A network of 108 publications was identified, containing 5,041 potential citation paths and 669 utilized citation paths. Reporting statistically significant results was found to be a strong predictor of citation, together with sample size, journal impact factor, and the authority of the authors. Conclusion: Within the literature on trans fat intake and cholesterol, selective citations are based on several grounds. Especially the effect of reporting significant results on citation requires special attention because disproportionate attention is paid to publications suggesting a harmful effect of trans fat on cholesterol.

show abstract

Section: What Is the Implication And What Should Change Now?mentioning

confidence: 56%

“…The occurrence of citation bias has been studied in a number of research areas. Recently, a systematic review and meta-analysis summarized the literature on citation bias [12]. Forty-six publications on citation bias were identified from different research areas and using different methods.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Citation bias in the literature on dietary trans fatty acids and serum cholesterol

Urlings

Duyx

Swaen

et al. 2019

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This possible lack of publication of null results is being discussed as a major source of bias in the published literature (e.g., Sterling ; Ioannidis ; MP Zeegers, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, The Netherlands, unpublished communication), and citation bias (e.g., Duyx et al ) is also likely to play a role, but there seems to be no easily applicable remedy. It is up to the scientist whether to attempt to publish inconclusive or negative data, but it is increasingly difficult to do so in peer‐reviewed journals (Calnan et al , cited in Song et al ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative assessment of the intrinsic sensitivity of crop species and wild plant species to plant protection products and their active substances and potential implications for the risk assessment: A literature review

Christl

Morilla

Hoen

et al. 2019

Integr Envir Assess & Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A comprehensive critical review was undertaken aiming to compare the intrinsic sensitivity of terrestrial plant species (crop species and noncrop wild species) with published literature and unpublished proprietary data generated for the registration of plant protection products (PPPs), and a database was compiled. Data were assessed to answer the question whether crops differ from noncrop plants in their intrinsic sensitivity to PPPs. Endpoints were assessed considering further potentially relevant parameters by means of different methods, including a quotient approach, in which overall crop endpoints were divided by matching wild species endpoints. Quotients above 1 indicated that wild species were more sensitive than crops, quotients below 1 the opposite. Further methods included a multiple regression analysis and different approaches to assess the statistical power. The overall finding was that there were no consistent differences in sensitivity between wild plant species and crop species, based on ER50, ER25, and ER10 vegetative endpoints (the largest fraction of data). This was also true when censored endpoints, seedling emergence data, and other measured variables such as shoot height were included. Statistically significant differences occurred in both directions and were balanced, that is, there was no clear trend for either crops or noncrop species to be more sensitive than the other. On the basis of multivariate regression analysis, crops were found to be significantly more sensitive than wild plant species, albeit by a small margin (factor %1.4). Minimum detectable difference (MDD) analysis and multivariate regression analysis of modified datasets indicated that when using a data set of this size and heterogeneity, any dissimilarity between crop and wild species was detectable if exceeding a factor of 1.4 in either direction. For the taxonomic groups assessed here (i.e., with data), no intrinsic difference in sensitivity to PPPs between crop species and wild plant species was found. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2019;15:176-189. C 2018 SETAC

show abstract

“…It must therefore be expected that the chance of a valid experiment being published is affected by the outcome, specifically that null results are less likely to be published. Such publication bias may lead to incorrect conclusions and may impede scientific advance and is further exacerbated by a potential citation bias (e.g., Robins and Craik ; Case and Higgins ; Duyx et al ), that is, the tendency that “negative data” are less likely to be cited and distributed than those which appear to have found something new and exciting, even though the former might be scientifically as robust as the latter. However, there seems to be no easily applicable remedy.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Assessment of Vegetative and Reproductive Terrestrial Plant Species Endpoints from Exposure to Herbicides and Potential Environmental Implications: A Review

Christl¹,

Hoen²,

Zumkier³

2019

Integr Envir Assess & Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To investigate whether vegetative endpoints are protective of reproductive endpoints in terrestrial plant risk assessments (RAs) for authorization of plant protection products (PPPs), we assessed differences in sensitivity to herbicides between these parameters. Published literature and unpublished proprietary data generated for the registration of PPPs were used to compile a database. If reproductive endpoints were systematically more sensitive than the vegetative endpoints on which regulatory decisions are presently based, a concern could be raised about the protectiveness of the current RA process. Vegetative and reproductive endpoints were assessed considering further potentially relevant parameters. Reproductive endpoints were compared with vegetative endpoints of juvenile plants or with those of mature plants. Direct comparison by substance–species combination proved to be most adequate and was used to calculate quotients by effect level. In addition, we assessed the spread between different effect levels, estimating by which factor the conservatism would increase if effect rate (ER)50 endpoints were replaced by ER25 or ER10 endpoints with otherwise unchanged test parameters. Reproductive endpoints were found to be similarly sensitive as vegetative endpoints derived in nontarget terrestrial plant (NTTP) studies conducted following Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and Development (OECD) or US Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) guidelines. A switch from vegetative to reproductive endpoints would therefore not significantly change the conservatism (less than a factor of 1.5), whereas the change from ER50 to ER10 would (by a factor of ~5 to 6). However, because ecotoxicological tests on terrestrial plants bear intrinsic high variability that prevents the reliable detection of effects at the 10% effect level, ER10 endpoints are not a reliable basis for RA. No particular family, genus, or species with clusters of distinctly insensitive vegetative and sensitive reproductive endpoints could be identified that would call for regular testing of reproductive endpoints. Also, from the data set available, no specific herbicidal modes of action could be singled out for acting particularly on reproductive endpoints. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2020;16:166–183. © 2019 SETAC

show abstract

Scientific citations favor positive results: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract: Similar to what we already know on publication bias, also citation bias can lead to an overrepresentation of positive results and unfounded beliefs.

Cited by 135 publications

References 63 publications

Citation bias in the literature on dietary trans fatty acids and serum cholesterol

Citation bias in the literature on dietary trans fatty acids and serum cholesterol

Comparative assessment of the intrinsic sensitivity of crop species and wild plant species to plant protection products and their active substances and potential implications for the risk assessment: A literature review

Comparative Assessment of Vegetative and Reproductive Terrestrial Plant Species Endpoints from Exposure to Herbicides and Potential Environmental Implications: A Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About