The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Finding the missing science: The fate of studies submitted for review by a human subjects committee.
Open accessAbstract
Publication bias, including prejudice against the null hypothesis, and other biasing filters may operate on researchers as well as journal editors and reviewers. A survey asked 33 psychology researchers to describe the fate of 159 studies approved by their departmental human subjects review committee. About two thirds of completed studies did not result in published summaries. About half of the unpublished studies fell out of the process for reasons other than methodological quality. Among these, lack of interest and aims that did not include publication were cited more often than nonsignificant results as the reasons why publication was not pursued. However, significant findings were more likely than nonsignificant findings to be submitted for meeting presentation or publication. These results indicate attention needs to be paid to improving how psychological scientists communicate, especially to the creation of prospective research registers.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Publication bias may be the result of journals choosing not to publish papers with non-significant primary outcomes (Hopewell et al. 2009) or study authors choosing not to submit the study for publication (Cooper et al. 1997).”
From Effects of after-school programs with at-risk youth on attendance and externalizing behaviors: A systematic review and meta-analysis (2015) · cites this paper as Cooper et al. 1997
Citations
Cites
Consequences of prejudice against the null hypothesis.
Greenwald, A. G. (1975) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0076157 · Cited by 1,022 · cited 1×
“Greenwald (1975) demonstrated that prejudice against the null hypothesis is not restricted to journal reviewers and editors only.”
BackgroundPublication bias: the case for an international registry of clinical trials.
Simes, R. J. (1986) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.1986.4.10.1529 · Cited by 747
Minimizing the Three Stages of Publication Bias
Chalmers, T. C. (1990) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.1990.03440100104016 · Cited by 226
Cooper, H. M., & Hedges, L. V. (1994) · Journal of International Crisis and Risk Communication Research · Cited by 170
Self-citation
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/0023-8333.00136 · Cited by 2,569
Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias
Dwan, K., Altman, D. G., Arnaiz, J. A., Bloom, J., Chan, A.-W., Cronin, E., Decullier, E., Easterbrook, P. J., Von Elm, E., Gamble, C., et al. (2008) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0003081 · Cited by 1,546
Publication bias in the social sciences: Unlocking the file drawer
Franco, A., Malhotra, N., & Simonovits, G. (2014) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1255484 · Cited by 1,542
Dwan, K., Gamble, C., Williamson, P. R., Kirkham, J. J., & the Reporting Bias Group (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0066844 · Cited by 1,127
Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases
Song, F., Parekh, Hooper, L., Loke, Y., Ryder, J., Sutton, A., Hing, C., Kwok, C., Pang, C., & Harvey, I. (2010) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta14080 · Cited by 1,039
Metadata
- Authors
- Cooper, H., DeNeve, K., & Charlton, K.
- Affiliations
- University of Missouri (US)
- ORCID
- Cooper, Harris
- Venue
- Psychological Methods
- Published
- 1997-12
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 447-452
- ISSN
- 1082-989X (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1463
- OpenAlex
- W2120579488
- Cited by
- 144
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 3.13
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- Licence
- cc-by-nc-nd
- Locations
- Psychological Methods (publishedVersion)
- DukeSpace (Duke University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Academic Publishing and Open Access
- Keywords
- publication bias, missing studies, unpublished research, null hypothesis significance testing, non-significant results, research register, scholarly communication, psychology research practice
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Finding the missing science: The fate of studies submitted for review by a human subjects committee. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/1082-989x.2.4.447
- The paper
- Cooper, H., DeNeve, K., & Charlton, K. (1997). Finding the missing science: The fate of studies submitted for review by a human subjects committee. Psychological Methods. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989x.2.4.447
