Citation map · Study

SZodixStudyAcademic Library

Shelves Open access

Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated

Statistical significance, reviewer evaluations, and the scientific process: Is there a (statistically) significant relationship?

6 references·16 citing·38 second hop

FromToDepth

this work references cited by second hop

References

2017A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance18,122 cited
1968Experimenter Effects in Behavioral Research1,621 cited
1959Publication Decisions and their Possible Effects on Inferences Drawn from Tests of Significance—or Vice Versa964 cited
1966Psychotherapy and the psychology of behavior change285 cited
1964The importance of negative results in psychological research.148 cited
1970A Proposal for a New Editorial Policy in the Social Sciences144 cited

Cited by

1991A Critical Appraisal of Demand Artifacts in Consumer Research135 cited
2007Direct comparisons of treatment modalities for youth disorders: a meta-analysis126 cited
1990Hypothesis validity of clinical research.53 cited
1998A Critique of the Usefulness of Inferential Statistics in Applied Behavior Analysis32 cited
2008Ethical considerations in synthesising research ‐ Whose representations?23 cited
1987The File Drawer Effect and Publication Rates in Menstrual Cycle Research23 cited
2010Peer review and journal impact factor: the two pillars of contemporary medical publishing.22 cited
2009What's Wrong with Research Literatures? And how to Make Them Right22 cited
2001

Only edges whose both ends are imported exist here. Widen the year window, or show the whole map. Back to the work

Statistical Significance, Effect Size, and Replication: What Do the Journals Say?

21 cited

2025Small, Medium, Large? A Meta-Study of Effect Sizes at CHI to Aid Interpretation of Effect Sizes and Power Calculation18 cited

2006Publication of Nonsignificant Results: A Survey of Psychologists' Opinions17 cited

2007Statistical power: An historical introduction16 cited

1983Reviewer bias for statistically significant results: A reexamination.15 cited

1999Gate-keepers or judges: peer reviews in construction management13 cited

2005The Performance of Peer Review and a Beauty Contest of Referee Processes of Economics Journals11 cited

1983Statistical significance, power, and effect size: A response to the reexamination of reviewer bias.10 cited