The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 16 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results.
Abstract
For any given research area, one cannot tell how many studies have been con-ducted but never reported. The extreme view of the "file drawer problem " is that journals are filled with the 5 % of the studies that show Type I errors, while the file drawers are filled with the 95 % of the studies that show non-significant results. Quantitative procedures for computing the tolerance for filed and future null results are reported and illustrated, and the implications are discussed. Both behavioral researchers and statisti-cians have long suspected that the studies published in the behavioral sciences are a biased sample of the studies that are actually carried out (Bakan, 1967; McNemar, 1960; Smart, 1964; Sterling, 1959). The extreme view of this problem, the "file drawer prob-lem, " is that the journals are filled with the 5 % of the studies that show Type I errors, while the file drawers back at the lab are filled with the 95 % of the studies that show nonsignificant (e.g., p>.05) results. In the past there was very little one could do to assess the net effect of studies, tucked away in file drawers, that did not make the magic.05 level (Rosenthal & Gaito, 1963, 1964). Now, however, although no definitive solution to the problem is available, one can establish reasonable boundaries on the prob-lem and estimate the degree of damage to any research conclusion that could be done by the file drawer problem. This advance in our ability to cope with the file drawer is an outgrowth of the in-creasing interest of behavioral scientists in summarizing bodies of research literature sys-Preparation of this article was supported in part by the National Science Foundation. I would like to thank Judith A. Hall and Donald B. Rubin for their valuable improvements of an earlier version of this article. Requests for reprints should be sent to Robert
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
“We then calculated Rosenthal’s fail-safe N (Rosenthal, 1979), and determined that 2,153,789 effects evidencing no relationship between SA and psychopathology (g = 0) would be needed to reduce the significance level of the summary effect size to .05.”
From Sexual assault victimization and psychopathology: A review and meta-analysis (2017) · cites this paper as Rosenthal, 1979
In the citing paper
“The file drawer effect is a perennial problem in the academic literature (Rosenthal, 1979)”
From Sexual assault victimization and psychopathology: A review and meta-analysis (2017) · cites this paper as Rosenthal, 1979
In the citing paper
“First, we calculated the fail-safe N [177] to be 4,274, which is the theoretical number of unpublished studies with effect sizes averaging zero (no effect) that would be needed to render negligible the omnibus results.”
From Social Relationships and Mortality Risk: A Meta-analytic Review (2010) · cites this paper as [177]
In the citing paper
“As we did not include unpublished work in our meta-analyses we tested for publication bias in the following ways.Firstly, funnel plots were examined.demonstrating no systematic publication biases (tables available from first author on request).Secondly..Fail-safe N (Rosenthal, 1979) values ranged from k=2048 to k=6708 studies for the primary study aims, suggesting absence of publication bias.”
From Acceptance and commitment therapy - Do we know enough? Cumulative and sequential meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. (2016) · cites this paper as Rosenthal, 1979
In the citing paper
“Fail-safe N (Rosenthal, 1979) values ranged from k=2048 to k=6708 studies for the primary study aims, suggesting absence of publication bias.”
From Acceptance and commitment therapy - Do we know enough? Cumulative and sequential meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. (2016) · cites this paper as Rosenthal, 1979
In the citing paper
“Presence of publication bias was assessed with funnel plots, 22 Rosenthal's fail-safe N , 23 and Egger's regression intercept. 24”
From Light Therapy for Patients With Bipolar Depression: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials (2020) · cites this paper as [23]
In the citing paper
“In terms of study quality, there was some indication of publication bias whereby some associations between racism and health outcomes were stronger in published versus unpublished studies, consistent with the tendency for ‘null’ studies to remain unpublished (i.e., the ‘file drawer’ problem [418]).”
From Racism as a Determinant of Health: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (2015) · cites this paper as [418]
In the citing paper
“An alternative, perhaps more plausible, explanation is that there could be a significant amount of unpublished negative or inconclusive results, a phenomenon referred to as the “file-drawer effect” or publication bias (23).”
From Statistical and Methodological Considerations for the Interpretation of Intranasal Oxytocin Studies (2016) · cites this paper as [23]
In the citing paper
“If either of the two last hypotheses is true, there should exist many unpublished studies with null results lying in laboratories' drawers (32).”
From Is there a Publication Bias in Behavioural Intranasal Oxytocin Research on Humans? Opening the File Drawer of One Laboratory (2016) · cites this paper as [32]
In the citing paper
“Even if the first REM episode occurs about 70 minutes after falling asleep (33), some subjects may present a REM EEG and occulomotor pattern a way farster.The REM sleep can actually occur pretty rapidly in some individuals according to the MD (sleep specialist) who co-supervised this study.Furthermore, the MSLT has specialy been built for this puporse (see32)”
From Is there a Publication Bias in Behavioural Intranasal Oxytocin Research on Humans? Opening the File Drawer of One Laboratory (2016) · cites this paper as [32]
In the citing paper
“Publication bias was evaluated using Rosenthal's file drawer analysis (Rosenthal, 1979) and Egger's linear regression (Card, 2012), and applying ANOVA to compare the mean effect size of the published versus unpublished studies.”
From Don't throw away your printed books: A meta-analysis on the effects of reading media on reading comprehension (2018) · cites this paper as Rosenthal, 1979
In the citing paper
“Rosenthal (1979) suggested a fail-safe N value above 5; k + 10 reflects results that are tolerant to contradicting studies”
From Emotional processes, collective behavior, and social movements: A meta-analytic review of collective effervescence outcomes during collective gatherings and demonstrations (2022) · cites this paper as Rosenthal, 1979
In the citing paper
“We applied random-effects models to fit the relations between CE and the criterion variables, following the guidelines proposed by Rosenthal (1979), Hunter and Schmidt (2004) and Cumming (2013).”
From Emotional processes, collective behavior, and social movements: A meta-analytic review of collective effervescence outcomes during collective gatherings and demonstrations (2022) · cites this paper as Rosenthal (1979)
In the citing paper
“The fail-safe value for this meta-analysis was computed to be 3001, which is more than 5(36) + 10.”
From Effects of digital game-based STEM education on students’ learning achievement: a meta-analysis (2022) · cites this paper as Rosenthal, 1979
In the citing paper
“Moreover, we suggest our results may look like a lot of studies that ended up in the so-called “file drawer” [57].”
From Not so terrifying after all? A set of failed replications of the mortality salience effects of Terror Management Theory (2023) · cites this paper as [57]
In the citing paper
“Finally, publication bias was addressed by computing the fail-safe N for the correlation coefficients (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004;Rosenthal, 1979), which reports the number of field effect sizes or the tolerance for future null results, to check whether a publication bias affected our results.”
From Drivers of Consumer Adoption of e-Commerce: a Meta-Analysis (2022) · cites this paper as Rosenthal, 1979
In the citing paper
“Using Rosenthal’s (1979) fail-safe N criterion that the value should be over five times greater than the number of studies included in the meta-analysis, the fail-safe N for all outcome groups were at least eight times larger than the criterion value, suggesting that the effect sizes are unlikely to be an artifact of bias.”
From Racism as a Determinant of Health: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (2015) · cites this paper as Rosenthal (1979)
In the citing paper
“A possible interpretation of these results is that the missing effect sizes are mainly a file‐drawer problem (Rosenthal, 1979). This interpretation is consistent with the evidence presented in Franco et al. (2014), which indicates that the file‐drawer problem is the main culprit behind publication bias in the social sciences.”
From Targeted school‐based interventions for improving reading and mathematics for students with or at risk of academic difficulties in Grades K‐6: A systematic review (2021) · cites this paper as Rosenthal, 1979
In the citing paper
“Moreover, Rosenthal (1979) opined that a Fail-safe N exceeding the number of studies by fivefold would provide strong support for the robustness of the significant effects.”
From Extending the Theory of Planned Behavior in the Social Commerce Context: A Meta-Analytic SEM (MASEM) Approach (2023) · cites this paper as Rosenthal (1979)
In the citing paper
“The trim-and-fill method (Duval & Tweedie, 2000) tends to adjust too little when bias is strong (Carter et al., 2019), and Fail-Safe N (Rosenthal, 1979) neither tests nor adjusts for the presence of bias.”
From Do Salient Social Norms Moderate Mortality Salience Effects? A (Challenging) Meta-Analysis of Terror Management Studies (2023) · cites this paper as Rosenthal, 1979
In the citing paper
“Not including these studies may lead to an overestimation of the true effect size, a phenomenon known as ' publication bias ' (Rosenthal 1979).”
From The Effects of Youth Mentoring Programs: A Meta-analysis of Outcome Studies (2019) · cites this paper as Rosenthal 1979
In the citing paper
“However, a common problem is that results may not have been reported in dissertations or research reports, or published in scienti fi c (peer-reviewed) journals, due to non-signi fi cant or unfavorable fi ndings and, therefore, are dif fi cult to locate.”
From The Effects of Youth Mentoring Programs: A Meta-analysis of Outcome Studies (2019) · cites this paper as Rosenthal 1979
In the citing paper
“Potentially problematic practices include selective reporting, selective analysis, and insufficient specification of the conditions necessary or sufficient to obtain the results ( 1223 ).”
From Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science (2015) · cites this paper as [21]
In the citing paper
“The traditional fail-safe value is 1904, which is higher than the threshold value of 100, i.e., [5(18) + 10], indicating that publication bias is insignificant, and the study's results are reliable.”
From A meta-analysis to explore the role of design thinking in enhancing creativity as learning outcomes in STEM education (2026) · cites this paper as Rosenthal, 1979
In the citing paper
“The Q statistic was used to assess heterogeneity30, and publication bias was estimated using Rosenthal’s fail-safe number with α = 0.0531.”
From The limited prosocial effects of meditation: A systematic review and meta-analysis (2018) · cites this paper as [31]
In the citing paper
“Rosenthal's fail-safe number (NR) was calculated, estimating the number of unpublished studies with non-significant results needed to bring an observed result to non-significance (NR ⩾ 5k + 10 to rule out a file drawer problem) (Rosenthal, 1979).”
From Efficacy of non-invasive brain stimulation on cognitive functioning in brain disorders: a meta-analysis (2020) · cites this paper as Rosenthal, 1979
In the citing paper
“In case of statistically significant effect sizes, it was planned to examine the robustness of findings by calculating the Failsafe N (number of non‐significant studies that would bring the p‐value to non‐significant (p > 0.05)) 40.”
From Cognitive behavioral therapies for informal caregivers of patients with cancer and cancer survivors: a systematic review and meta-analysis (2017) · cites this paper as [40]
In the citing paper
“With negative results buried in file drawers (55), conclusions drawn from the published record can be misleading, and 'false facts' can become canonized in the literature (56).”
From Misinformation in and about science (2021) · cites this paper as [55]
In the citing paper
“the fail-safe N (i.e. the file drawer statistic) was used to determine how many additional studies would be necessary to turn a significant ES non-significant (32).”
From Peripheral cytokine and chemokine alterations in depression: a meta‐analysis of 82 studies (2017) · cites this paper as [32]
In the citing paper
“File drawer analysis (Rosenthal, 1979) revealed that 1919 unpublished, filed, or unretrieved studies averaging null results would be required to bring the average unweighted effect size to nonsignificance.”
From Happy to help? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of performing acts of kindness on the well-being of the actor (2018) · cites this paper as Rosenthal, 1979
In the citing paper
“Rosenthal's (1979) fail-safe N analysis reveals 186 unpublished papers (i.e., null effect) are needed to be included in the meta-analysis in order to invalidate the population effect size of small to medium (i.e., .235)found in this review.”
From A meta-analytic review of the efficacy of physical exercise interventions on cognition in individuals with autism spectrum disorder and ADHD (2016) · cites this paper as Rosenthal's (1979)
In the citing paper
“Not including these studies may lead to an overestimation of the true effect size, the so called ' publication bias ' (Rosenthal, 1979).”
From The effects of physical activity interventions on psychosocial outcomes in adolescents: a meta-analytic review (2016) · cites this paper as Rosenthal, 1979
In the citing paper
“Rosenthal's fail-safe N 37 calculated 115 missing studies would be required to increase the two-tailed p-value to above .05.”
From Anxiety in Informal Dementia Carers: A Meta-Analysis of Prevalence (2020) · cites this paper as [37]
In the citing paper
“Publication bias was investigated with Begg's rank correlation test for funnel plot asymmetry (Begg and Mazumdar, 1994) and where significant effects were present Rosenthal's file drawer analysis was also conducted (Rosenthal, 1979).”
From Meta-analysis of the effects of intranasal oxytocin on interpretation and expression of emotions (2017) · cites this paper as Rosenthal, 1979
In the citing paper
“Over time, this practice artificially inflates Type I error and may make it appear that relationships exist when in reality they do not (Rosenthal et al., 1979).”
From Psychosocial functioning and the cortisol awakening response: meta-analysis, P-curve analysis, and evaluation of the evidential value in existing studies (2017) · cites this paper as Rosenthal et al., 1979
In the citing paper
“However, a potential problem with meta-analysis is the file drawer problem, where studies are “filed away” unpublished if they fail to find statistically significant relationships.”
From Psychosocial functioning and the cortisol awakening response: meta-analysis, P-curve analysis, and evaluation of the evidential value in existing studies (2017) · cites this paper as Rosenthal et al., 1979
In the citing paper
“Meta-analyses are necessarily based on the available literature and hence may be affected by the potential publication-bias disfavoring null results (Rosenthal 1979).”
From Parsing the neural correlates of moral cognition: ALE meta-analysis on morality, theory of mind, and empathy (2012) · cites this paper as Rosenthal 1979
In the citing paper
“there is good evidence that journals, especially prestigious ones with higher impact factors, disproportionately publish statistically significant results [ 4 – 10 ].”
From The Extent and Consequences of P-Hacking in Science (2015) · cites this paper as [7]
Citations
Cites
Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
Cohen, J. (1990) · Computers Environment and Urban Systems · doi:10.1016/0198-9715(90)90050-4 · Cited by 65,417
The Handbook of Social Psychology
Gravatt, A. E., Lindzey, G. E., & Aronson, F. (1969) · The Family Coordinator · doi:10.2307/582242 · Cited by 12,518
Some Methods for Strengthening the Common χ 2 Tests
Cochran, W. G. (1954) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/3001616 · Cited by 3,718 · cited 1×
“Perhaps the simplest, most useful way of computing the overall p of a, set of research studies is the method of adding Zs (Cochran, 1954; Mosteller & Bush, 1954; Rosenthal, 1978).”
MethodMeta-analysis of psychotherapy outcome studies.
Smith, M. L., & Glass, G. V. (1977) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.32.9.752 · Cited by 2,154
Experimenter Effects in Behavioral Research
McGuigan, F. J., & Rosenthal, R. (1968) · The American Journal of Psychology · doi:10.2307/1420816 · Cited by 1,633
Self-citationArtifact in behavioral research
Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (1969) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 1,186
Self-citationSterling, T. D. (1959) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1959.10501497 · Cited by 964
Combining results of independent studies.
Rosenthal, R. (1978) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.85.1.185 · Cited by 910
Self-citationGender effects in decoding nonverbal cues.
Hall, J. A. (1978) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.85.4.845 · Cited by 766
Wortman, C. B., Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (1976) · The American Journal of Psychology · doi:10.2307/1421418 · Cited by 428
Self-citation
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 1,301–1,374 of 1,374
Prospective memory deficits in patients with depression: A meta-analysis
Zhou, F.-C., Wang, Y.-Y., Zheng, W., Zhang, Q., Ungvari, G. S., Ng, C. H., Zhang, J., & Xiang, Y.-T. (2017) · Journal of Affective Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jad.2017.05.042 · Cited by 52
A Systems-Based Approach to Fostering Robust Science in Industrial-Organizational Psychology
Grand, J. A., Rogelberg, S. G., Allen, T. D., Landis, R. S., Reynolds, D. H., Scott, J. C., Tonidandel, S., & Truxillo, D. M. (2018) · Industrial and Organizational Psychology · doi:10.1017/iop.2017.55 · Cited by 52
“For example, authors are often the only ones who know whether time and effort was devoted to examining data supportive of their hypotheses, whereas less supportive data were relegated to the “file drawer” (Rosenthal, 1979).”
BackgroundDunn, C., & Sicouri, G. (2022) · Behaviour Change · doi:10.1017/bec.2022.13 · Cited by 48
“A fail-safe N analysis was conducted to address the potential ‘file drawer’ problem (Rosenthal, 1979), such that only significant results are published.”
Chan, R., Brooks, R., Steel, Z., Heung, T., Erlich, J., Chow, J., & Suranyi, M. (2012) · Quality of Life Research · doi:10.1007/s11136-011-9973-9 · Cited by 48
López-Pinar, C., Martínez-Sanchís, S., Carbonell-Vayá, E., Sánchez-Meca, J., & Fenollar-Cortés, J. (2020) · Journal of Attention Disorders · doi:10.1177/1087054719855685 · Cited by 47
“Finally, the fail-safe N (Rosenthal, 1979), which is the number of additional studies with a null effect needed to make the meta-analysis nonsignificant (raising the p value above .05), was also calculated.”
BackgroundMethodCurtiss, J., Andrews, L., Davis, M., Smits, J., & Hofmann, S. G. (2017) · Expert Opinion on Pharmacotherapy · doi:10.1080/14656566.2017.1285907 · Cited by 46
“was conducted to address the file drawer problem [69, 70].”
MethodXie, H., Zhou, Z., & Liu, Q. (2018) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-018-9442-x · Cited by 46
Leppanen, J., Ng, K. W., Kim, Y.-R., Tchanturia, K., & Treasure, J. (2018) · Journal of Affective Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jad.2017.08.041 · Cited by 45
Xia, Q., Li, W., Yang, Y., Weng, X., & Chiu, T. K. F. (2025) · Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2025.100455 · Cited by 45
Taylor, S. J., Carnes, D., Homer, K., Pincus, T., Kahan, B. C., Hounsome, N., Eldridge, S., Spencer, A., Diaz-Ordaz, K., Rahman, A., et al. (2016) · Programme Grants for Applied Research · doi:10.3310/pgfar04140 · Cited by 44
Efficacy of EEG neurofeedback in psychiatry: A comprehensive overview and meta-analysis
J.H. Begemann, M., J.R. Florisse, E., van Lutterveld, R., Kooyman, M., & E. Sommer, I. (2016) · Translational Brain Rhythmicity · doi:10.15761/tbr.1000105 · Cited by 44
“As a guideline, the fail-safe number should be 5k+10 or higher (k=number of studies in a meta-analysis) to rule out a file drawer problem [12].”
BackgroundInfluentialLunar cycle effects on sleep and the file drawer problem
Cordi, M., Ackermann, S., Bes, F. W., Hartmann, F., Konrad, B. N., Genzel, L., Pawlowski, M., Steiger, A., Schulz, H., Rasch, B., et al. (2014) · Current Biology · doi:10.1016/j.cub.2014.05.017 · Cited by 44
Exploring the Effectiveness of Flipped Classroom on STEM Student Achievement: A Meta-analysis
Gong, J., Cai, S., & Cheng, M. (2024) · Technology, Knowledge and Learning · doi:10.1007/s10758-023-09700-7 · Cited by 42
“…from publication bias, including: (1) assessing the funnel plot (Light & Pillemer, 1986); (2) computing the Begg & Mazumdar rank correlation (Begg & Mazumdar, 1994); (3) calculating Egger’s linear regression (Egger et al., 1997); (4) conducting the classic fail-safe N test (Rosenthal, 1979).”
Tyra, A. T., Fergus, T. A., & Ginty, A. T. (2024) · Health Psychology Review · doi:10.1080/17437199.2023.2251559 · Cited by 39
“Publication bias was assessed using Egger ’ s unweighted regression asymmetry test (Egger et al., 1997) as well as Rosenthal ’ s fail-safe N (Rosenberg, 2005; Rosenthal, 1979).”
MethodOverall and differential attrition in mindfulness-based interventions: A meta-analysis
Lam, S. U., Kirvin-Quamme, A., & Goldberg, S. B. (2022) · Mindfulness · doi:10.1007/s12671-022-01970-z · Cited by 39
Positive affect and medication adherence in chronic conditions: A systematic review.
Bassett, S. M., Schuette, S. A., O'Dwyer, L. C., & Moskowitz, J. T. (2019) · Health Psychology · doi:10.1037/hea0000778 · Cited by 40
“While it is possible to calculate Rosenthal’s fail-safe N (Rosenthal, 1979) in meta-analyses, thus accounting for the file drawer problem statistically, it was not possible to calculate Rosenthal’s fail-safe N for this qualitative synthesis.”
BackgroundInfluentialBanbury, S., Lusher, J., Snuggs, S., & Chandler, C. (2023) · Sexual and Relationship Therapy · doi:10.1080/14681994.2021.1883578 · Cited by 40
“We were also mindful that unpublished studies (file drawer effect) may have illuminated this review with regards to gender differences, MBI and sexual dysfunction (Rosenthal, 1979).”
BackgroundSingle-case experimental research designs.
Kazdin, A. E. (2015) · Methodological issues and strategies in clinical research (4th ed.). · doi:10.1037/14805-029 · Cited by 39
Sep, M. S. C., Geuze, E., & Joëls, M. (2023) · Translational Psychiatry · doi:10.1038/s41398-023-02660-7 · Cited by 39
“Rosenthal ’ s fail-safe N [73] was calculated for each valence × phase level in the models, to evaluate the robustness of the estimated effects.”
MethodMontero-Marin, J., Garcia-Campayo, J., López-Montoyo, A., Zabaleta-del-Olmo, E., & Cuijpers, P. (2018) · Psychological Medicine · doi:10.1017/s0033291717003099 · Cited by 37
“Finally, we also calculated Rosenthal’s fail-safe N test (Rosenthal, 1979), which computes the number of missing studies that would need to be added to the analysis to yield a statistically insignificant overall effect, assuming that the effect in the hidden studies is nil.”
MethodDo, A., Li, V. W., Huang, S., Michalak, E. E., Tam, E. M., Chakrabarty, T., Yatham, L. N., & Lam, R. W. (2022) · The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1177/07067437221097903 · Cited by 37
Analytic Review as a Solution to the Misreporting of Statistical Results in Psychological Science
Sakaluk, J., Williams, A., & Biernat, M. (2014) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691614549257 · Cited by 32
Effect of design‐based learning on achievement in K‐12 education: A m eta‐analysis
Delen, I., & Sen, S. (2023) · Journal of Research in Science Teaching · doi:10.1002/tea.21800 · Cited by 37
Promoting learning from null or negative results in prevention science trials
Axford, N., Berry, V., Lloyd, J., Hobbs, T., & Wyatt, K. (2022) · Prevention Science · doi:10.1007/s11121-020-01140-4 · Cited by 34
“3 We readily acknowledge that the problems identified, such as failure to publish and conducting spurious sub-group analyses, are not unique to prevention science (Rosenthal 1979; Kasenda et al. 2014).”
Unpacking stigma: meta-analyses of correlates and moderators of personal stigma in psychosis
Eliasson, E. T., McNamee, L., Swanson, L., Lawrie, S. M., & Schwannauer, M. (2021) · Clinical Psychology Review · doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2021.102077 · Cited by 33
Gender differences in outcomes of bullying prevention programs: A meta-analysis.
Kennedy, R. S. (2020) · Children and Youth Services Review · doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105506 · Cited by 35
Levoy, K., Sullivan, S. S., Chittams, J., Myers, R. L., Hickman, S. E., & Meghani, S. H. (2023) · Journal of Pain and Symptom Management · doi:10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2023.02.003 · Cited by 35
Schindler, S., Hilgard, J., Fritsche, I., Burke, B., & Pfattheicher, S. (2023) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1177/10888683221107267 · Cited by 43
“, 2019), and Fail-Safe N (Rosenthal, 1979) neither tests nor adjusts for the presence of bias.”
BackgroundMethodAl-Durra, M., Nolan, R. P., Seto, E., Cafazzo, J. A., & Eysenbach, G. (2018) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/11924 · Cited by 32
“Perhaps, the earliest indication of publication bias in the area of scientific research was in 1979 by Robert Rosenthal with the term “file drawer problem,” acknowledging the existence of selective publication bias for studies with positive and significant results [1].”
Entrepreneurial spawning and knowledge-based perspective: A meta-analysis
Garrett, R. P., Miao, C., Qian, S., & Bae, T. J. (2017) · Small Business Economics · doi:10.1007/s11187-017-9842-1 · Cited by 33
Jackson, K. F., Hodge, D. R., & Vaughn, M. G. (2010) · Journal of Social Service Research · doi:10.1080/01488371003697780 · Cited by 30
Prediction of robust scientific facts from literature
Belikov, A. V., Rzhetsky, A., & Evans, J. (2022) · Nature Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s42256-022-00474-8 · Cited by 30
“The contrast between published findings and experimental data suggests the extent of the ‘file drawer problem’ in science where scientists euphemistically ‘file’ but do not publish negative or inconclusive results 55,56 .”
ResultTesting the performance of online recommendation agents: A meta-analysis
Blut, M., Ghiassaleh, A., & Wang, C. (2023) · Journal of Retailing · doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2023.08.001 · Cited by 31
A review of Parent-Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT): Applications for youth anxiety
Phillips, S., & Mychailyszyn, M. (2021) · Children and Youth Services Review · doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2021.105986 · Cited by 31
A Meta-Analysis of Trust in Mobile Banking: The Moderating Role of Cultural Dimensions
Kumar, P., Chauhan, S., Gupta, P., & Jaiswal, M. P. (2023) · International Journal of Bank Marketing · doi:10.1108/ijbm-02-2022-0075 · Cited by 34
Tablets for teaching and learning: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Tamim, R., Borokhovski, E., Pickup, D., Bernard, R. M., & Saadi, L. E. (2015) · Commonwealth of Learning · doi:10.13140/rg.2.1.3670.5042 · Cited by 31
Turner, D. T., Riedel, E., Kobeissi, L. H., Karyotaki, E., Garcia-Moreno, C., Say, L., & Cuijpers, P. (2020) · Journal of Global Health · doi:10.7189/jogh.10.010409 · Cited by 29
Little, A., Byrne, C., & Coetzer, R. (2021) · NeuroRehabilitation · doi:10.3233/nre-201544 · Cited by 29
“which was coined by Rosenthal (1979) as the “file766 drawer problem”.”
Evaluating Registered Reports: A Naturalistic Comparative Study of Article Impact
Hopun, L. T., Singleton Thorn, F., Nosek, B. A., & Errington, T. M. (2017) · doi:10.31219/osf.io/5y8w7 · Cited by 29
Dudda, L., Kormann, E., Kozula, M., DeVito, N. J., Klebel, T., Dewi, A. P. M., Spijker, R., Stegeman, I., Van den Eynden, V., Ross-Hellauer, T., et al. (2025) · Royal Society Open Science · doi:10.1098/rsos.242057 · Cited by 28
“The positive to neutral nature of the author-stated claims regarding efficacy found in our review may be ironically indicative that meta-research at present may suffer from possible selective reporting and publication bias [126–128] or over-optimistic interpretation of the results [129].”
Lin, P.-Z., Xue, J.-M., Yang, B., Li, M., & Cao, F.-L. (2018) · Archives of Women's Mental Health · doi:10.1007/s00737-018-0835-0 · Cited by 28
The Effect of EEG Neurofeedback Training on Sport Performance: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis
Yu, C., Cheng, M., An, X., Chueh, T., Wu, J., Wang, K., & Hung, T. (2025) · Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports · doi:10.1111/sms.70055 · Cited by 26
Treger, S., Benau, E. M., & Timko, C. A. (2023) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0285267 · Cited by 25
“It has long been noted that statistical significance is not, nor should be, the sole index of “successful” or worthy scientific endeavors: reporting only significant findings and failing to report non-significant findings can result in misleading conclusions and problematic followups [57, 58].”
BackgroundResultA retrospective analysis of dissemination biases in the brief alcohol intervention literature.
Tanner-Smith, E. E., & Polanin, J. R. (2015) · Psychology of Addictive Behaviors · doi:10.1037/adb0000014 · Cited by 26
A meta-analysis of the effect of substance use interventions on emotion outcomes.
Kang, D., Fairbairn, C. E., & Ariss, T. A. (2019) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/ccp0000450 · Cited by 25
“First, Rosenthal’s fail-safe N was calculated to determine whether publication bias might have influenced the size of the effect of addiction treatments on emotion outcomes (Rosenthal, 1979).”
MethodAn Experiment on Prediction Markets in Science
Almenberg, J., Kittlitz, K., & Pfeiffer, T. (2009) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0008500 · Cited by 24
Johannsen, M., Frederiksen, Y., Jensen, A., & Zachariae, R. (2017) · Journal of Pain Research · doi:10.2147/jpr.s124665 · Cited by 22
“32,33 37 A funnel plot is a graphic illustration of study effect sizes (ESs) in relation to study size or precision.”
Linking attachment to empathy in childhood and adolescence: A multilevel meta-analysis
Li, S., Ran, G., & Chen, X. (2021) · Journal of Social and Personal Relationships · doi:10.1177/02654075211031006 · Cited by 23
“In addition, the statistic Rosenthal’s Fail-safe N was used to test the number of missing studies (Rosenthal, 1979).”
Risk factors for juvenile cybercrime: A meta-analytic review
Wissink, I. B., Standaert, J. C. A., Stams, G. J. J. M., Asscher, J. J., & Assink, M. (2023) · Aggression and Violent Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.avb.2023.101836 · Cited by 22
Cyberbullying among children and youth in Türkiye: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Erbiçer, E. S., Ceylan, V., Yalçın, M. H., Erbiçer, S., Akın, E., Koçtürk, N., & Doğan, T. (2023) · Journal of Pediatric Nursing · doi:10.1016/j.pedn.2023.09.003 · Cited by 22
Maunick, B., Skvarc, D., Olive, L., & Mikocka-Walus, A. (2023) · Journal of Psychosomatic Research · doi:10.1016/j.jpsychores.2023.111366 · Cited by 21
Do Research Literatures Give Correct Answers?
Howard, G. S., Lau, M. Y., Maxwell, S. E., Venter, A., Lundy, R., & Sweeny, R. M. (2009) · Review of General Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0015468 · Cited by 21
Koh, S. H. (2024) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1399902 · Cited by 21
Papalia, N., Spivak, B., Daffern, M., & Ogloff, J. R. P. (2020) · Criminal Justice and Behavior · doi:10.1177/0093854820956377 · Cited by 19
Relationship dynamics associated with emotional IPV perpetration and victimization: A meta‐analysis
Keilholtz, B. M., Spencer, C. M., Vail, S., & Palmer, M. (2023) · Journal of Marital and Family Therapy · doi:10.1111/jmft.12630 · Cited by 19
Is biomedical research self-correcting? Modelling insights on the persistence of spurious science
Grimes, D. R. (2024) · Royal Society Open Science · doi:10.1098/rsos.231056 · Cited by 18
“This ‘ file-drawer ’ problems means that important and diligent negative findings are often not submitted for publication, while spurious findings are unduly favoured [27 – 30].”
BackgroundModerator effects of mobile users’ pedagogical role on science learning: a meta-analysis.
Shi, L., & Kopcha, T. J. (2022) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/bjet.13210 · Cited by 17
Choi, K., Vickers, K., & Tassone, A. (2014) · Europe's Journal of Psychology · doi:10.5964/ejop.v10i2.754 · Cited by 16
Addressing selective reporting of experiments through predefined exclusion criteria
Neves, K., & Amaral, O. B. (2020) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.56626 · Cited by 15
“A considerable body of literature exists on the omission of whole studies, a phenomenon best known as the ’file drawer effect’ (Rosenthal, 1979).”
BackgroundMuneer, S., Santhosh, M., Parangusan, H., & Bhadra, J. (2026) · International Journal of Technology and Design Education · doi:10.1007/s10798-025-10005-2 · Cited by 14
Standardized Effect Sizes and Image-Based Meta-Analytical Approaches for fMRI Data
Bossier, H., Nichols, T. E., & Moerkerke, B. (2019) · doi:10.1101/865881 · Cited by 14
“Nor do we aim to assess whether publication bias known as the ‘file drawer problem’ (Rosenthal, 1979) is present.”
BackgroundWang, X.-M., Wang, J.-L., Xu, S.-Y., & Xu, S.-J. (2025) · International Journal of STEM Education · doi:10.1186/s40594-025-00554-2 · Cited by 14
Ashford, D., Davids, K., & Bennett, S. J. (2009) · Journal of Sports Sciences · doi:10.1080/02640410802482409 · Cited by 11
Melatonin and agomelatine for preventing seasonal affective disorder
Kaminski-Hartenthaler, A., Nussbaumer, B., Forneris, C. A., Morgan, L. C., Gaynes, B. N., Sonis, J. H., Greenblatt, A., Wipplinger, J., Lux, L. J., Hofmann, J., et al. (2014) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd011271 · Cited by 11
Man, S. S., Li, X., Lin, X. J., Lee, Y.-C., & Chan, A. H. S. (2025) · International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2024.2434957 · Cited by 10
“Rosenthal (1979) proposed an extreme view of the “file drawer problem” that 95% of the studies were unpublished as they showed no significant results.”
Wu, D., Wu, H., & Li, J. (2024) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-024-05074-4 · Cited by 8
“This situation could perpetuate the ‘file drawer problem,’ where negative or inconclusive results remain unreported, which may contribute to publication bias and a lack of transparency in the scientific literature (Franco et al., 2014; Rosenthal, 1979).”
Computing Education Research Today
Fincher, S. A., Tenenberg, J., Dorn, B., Hundhausen, C., McCartney, R., & Murphy, L. (2019) · The Cambridge Handbook of Computing Education Research · doi:10.1017/9781108654555.003 · Cited by 7
Rongione, D., Erford, B. T., & Broglie, C. (2011) · Counseling Outcome Research and Evaluation · doi:10.1177/2150137811400595 · Cited by 6
Man, S. S., Su, P., Xiao, C., Yun, H., & Chan, A. H. S. (2026) · Ergonomics · doi:10.1080/00140139.2025.2554243 · Cited by 7
“The fail-safe N value (Rosenthal 1979), Begg and Mazumdar rank correlation test (Begg and Mazumdar 1994) and Egger’s regression intercept test (Egger et al. 1997) were used to check the reliability and publication bias of the results.”
Chen, L., Benjamin, R., Guo, Y., Lai, A., & Heine, S. J. (2023) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1254756/v1 · Cited by 5
Virtual Reality or Videoconferencing for Online Learning? Evidence from Comparative Meta-Analyses
Zhang, Y., Luo, H., Peng, S., & Han, X. (2025) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app15116293 · Cited by 5
Murray, E., Horner, A. J., & Göbel, S. M. (2025) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-025-10035-1 · Cited by 4
“Additionally, authors included after full screening were asked via email whether they had any unreported data to combat the file drawer problem (Rosenthal, 1979).”
Wellman, R. J., Sugarman, D. B., DiFranza, J. R., & Winickoff, J. P. (2006) · Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine · doi:10.1001/archpedi.160.12.1285 · Cited by 2
Safety First! Residential Group Climate and Antisocial Behavior: A Multilevel Meta-analysis
E. M. A, E., J. J, R., G. H. P, V. D. H., E. J. E, H., C. H. Z, K., K. S, N., S, V., J. D, L., G. J. J. M, S., E, K., et al. (2025) · International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology · doi:10.1177/0306624x241252052 · Cited by 4
“Studies reporting significant associations are more likely to be published than studies with non-significant results, which can lead to an overestimation of the true effect size, referred to as the “file drawer problem” or “publication bias” (Rosenthal, 1979).”
Metadata
- Authors
- Rosenthal, R.
- Affiliations
- Harvard University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Rosenthal, Robert
- Venue
- Psychological Bulletin
- Published
- 1979-05
- Volume
- 86
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 638-641
- ISSN
- 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1455
- OpenAlex
- W2006546769
- Cited by
- 9,068
- References
- 16
- Citations by year
- 2026: 421 · 2025: 521 · 2024: 509 · 2023: 526 · 2022: 525 · 2021: 536 · 2020: 612 · 2019: 607 · 2018: 492 · 2017: 436 · 2016: 417 · 2015: 392 · 2014: 337 · 2013: 289 · 2012: 252
- FWCI
- 26.44
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Psychological Bulletin (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
- Keywords
- file drawer problem, negative results, publication bias, non-significant results, type I error, selective reporting, behavioral science, evidence synthesis
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
