Publication Decisions Revisited: The Effect of the Outcome of Statistical Tests on the Decision to Publish and Vice Versa

Abstract

This article presents evidence that published results of scientific investigations are not a representative sample of results of all scientific studies. Research studies from 11 major journals demonstrate the existence of biases that favor studies that observe effects that, on statistical evaluation, have a low probability of erroneously rejecting the so-called null hypothesis (H 0). This practice makes the probability of erroneously rejecting H 0 different for the reader than for the investigator. It introduces two biases in the interpretation of the scientific literature: one due to multiple repetition of studies with false hypothesis, and one due to failure to publish smaller and less significant outcomes of tests of a true hypotheses. These practices distort the results of literature surveys and of meta-analyses. These results also indicate that practice leading to publication bias have not changed over a period of 30 years.

Cite this

Theodore D. Sterling, Wilf L. Rosenbaum, James J. Weinkam (1995). Publication Decisions Revisited: The Effect of the Outcome of Statistical Tests on the Decision to Publish and Vice Versa. The American Statistician. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.1995.10476125

@article{d1995publication,
  title  = {Publication Decisions Revisited: The Effect of the Outcome of Statistical Tests on the Decision to Publish and Vice Versa},
  author = {Sterling, Theodore D. and Rosenbaum, Wilf L. and Weinkam, James J.},
  year   = {1995},
  journal = {The American Statistician},
  doi    = {10.1080/00031305.1995.10476125}
}

Citations in this library

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 453 citations exist upstream.

References

Cited by