Article1997

Publication Bias against Null Results

59 citations0/0 files storedPsychological Reports

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews Academic Publishing and Open Access Psychology Research and Bibliometrics

Abstract

Studies suggest a bias against the publication of null ( p >.05) results. Instead of significance, we advocate reporting effect sizes and confidence intervals, and using replication studies. If statistical tests are used, power tests should accompany them.

Citations in this library

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 59 citations exist upstream.

References

1994The earth is round (p < .05).1996Chronicle of Higher Education 1975Consequences of prejudice against the null hypothesis.1995Publication Decisions Revisited: The Effect of the Outcome of Statistical Tests on the Decision to Publish and Vice Versa 1994Replications and extensions in marketing: Rarely published but quite contrary 1996An empirical comparison of published replication research in accounting, economics, finance, management, and marketing 1992Are null results becoming an endangered species in marketing?

Cited by

2006Understanding Conceptual Schemas: Exploring the Role of Application and IS Domain Knowledge 2013In the eye of the beholder: Thin-ideal media affects some, but not most, viewers in a meta-analytic review of body dissatisfaction in women and men.2000Statistical Significance with Comments by Editors of Marketing Journals 2023Mental health and wellbeing of undergraduate students in engineering: A systematic literature review 2021Measuring Accounting Fraud and Irregularities Using Public and Private Enforcement 2008A meta‐analysis of effect sizes in international marketing experiments 2008Overwhelming heterogeneity in systematic reviews of observational anti-epileptic studies 2001Statistical Significance, Effect Size, and Replication: What Do the Journals Say?

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.