1996
DOI: 10.2307/3546355
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The "File Drawer Problem" of Non-Significant Results: Does It Apply to Biological Research?

Abstract: FORUM is intended for new ideas or new ways of interpreting existing information. It provides a chance for suggesting hypotheses and for challenging current thinking on FORUM ecological issues. A lighter prose, designed to attract readers, will be permitted. Formal research reports, albeit short, will not be accepted, and all contributions should be concise FOR~tUM~l with a relatively short list of references. A summary is not required. T he 'file drawer problem" of non-significant results: does it apply to bi… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

2
121
1
2

Year Published

2010
2010
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 171 publications
(127 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
(13 reference statements)
2
121
1
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Like biased reporting of significant effects subject to sampling variability (publication bias), p-hacking leads the published literature to overestimate true effect sizes. Given evidence of publication bias within biology [13], it is plausible that p-hacking also occurs. Trim-and-fill and PET-PEESE cannot adjust adequately for p-hacking [19].…”
Section: Revisiting Van Dongen and Gangestad (2011) With New Meta-anamentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Like biased reporting of significant effects subject to sampling variability (publication bias), p-hacking leads the published literature to overestimate true effect sizes. Given evidence of publication bias within biology [13], it is plausible that p-hacking also occurs. Trim-and-fill and PET-PEESE cannot adjust adequately for p-hacking [19].…”
Section: Revisiting Van Dongen and Gangestad (2011) With New Meta-anamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The average correlation between FA and these outcomes (weighted by standard errors) was r = 0.18. However, scholars argue that publication bias leads to an overestimation of population effect sizes in any scientific discipline with incentive structures that heavily favor statistically significant results [12]-and this includes biology [13]. VD&G thus applied multiple procedures to correct for publication bias: trim-and-fill [14], estimated effect size at large sample size (150) (for a related procedure, see [15] on PET-PEESE), and estimated effect size for all studies with N > 150.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…see Lake 2000, Huggett 2005, Bestelmeyer 2006, Groffman et al 2006, and it is surprising to us how little cross-citation occurs among different disciplines. There is also the unsettling possibility that thresholds, while widely reported, are not the norm in ecological systems because negative results are rarely reported (Rosenthal 1979, Csada et al 1996.…”
Section: Experimental Studiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There even are guidelines available to help such meta-analyses avoid or minimize certain limitations inherent in them, such as biases that arise because indexing services favor journals published in English or because journals prefer to publish positive results (Csada et al, 1996;Møller and Jennions, 2001;van Leeuwen et al, 2001;Rothstein et al, 2005;AleixandreBenavent et al, 2007).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%