CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 145Psychology Research and BibliometricsMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsAcademic Publishing and Open Access

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 access
Cooper, Harris, DeNeve, Kristina, Charlton, Kelly·1997·Psychological Methods
DOI 10.1037/1082-989x.2.4.447
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

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 About half of the unpublished studies fell out of the process for reasons other than methodological quality.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

Crossref · 10.1037/1082-989x.2.4.447

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 4 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–145 of 145

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Cooper, H., DeNeve, K., & Charlton, K.
Affiliations
University of Missouri (US)
ORCID
Cooper, Harris
Venue
Psychological Methods
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
1997-12
Volume
2
Issue
4
Pages
447-452
ISSN
  • 1082-989X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1463
DOI
10.1037/1082-989x.2.4.447
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
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