Credibility crisis in agricultural economics

Abstract

Abstract We provide empirical evidence of research practices that can undermine the credibility of empirical research in agricultural economics. We find that, in four popular journals, most studies are underpowered, a characteristic that, when coupled with publication bias, yields unreliable and exaggerated effect sizes. This problem is exacerbated by selective reporting of statistically significant results and multiple hypothesis testing without any adjustments to statistical inferences. Survey respondents self‐report engaging in practices that are consistent with these empirical findings. Addressing these problems in agricultural economics will require that editors, reviewers, and donors change the norms and incentives for authors.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 44 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.