The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Publication Decisions and their Possible Effects on Inferences Drawn from Tests of Significance—or Vice Versa
Abstract
There is some evidence that in fields where statistical tests of significance are commonly used, research which yields nonsignificant results is not published. Such research being unknown to other investigators may be repeated independently until eventually by chance a significant result occurs—an “error of the first kind”—and is published. Significant results published in these fields are seldom verified by independent replication. The possibility thus arises that the literature of such a field consists in substantial part of false conclusions resulting from errors of the first kind in statistical tests of significance.
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
“Most conclusions in psychology are based on the results of null hypothesis significance testing (NHST; Cumming et al., 2007; Hubbard & Ryan, 2000; Sterling, 1959; Sterling, Rosenbaum, & Weinkam, 1995).”
From The prevalence of statistical reporting errors in psychology (1985–2013) (2016) · cites this paper as Sterling, 1959
In the citing paper
“The bias against negative results appears to be a consequence of both editors and reviewers finding them less compelling for publication and from authors themselves not trying to publish them 8-12”
From Initial evidence of research quality of registered reports compared with the standard publishing model (2021) · cites this paper as [12]
In the citing paper
“Positive results -- finding that a treatment is effective or that there is a relationship between two variables -- are more likely to be published than negative results 6-12 .”
From Initial evidence of research quality of registered reports compared with the standard publishing model (2021) · cites this paper as [12]
In the citing paper
“These causes of overestimation can dramatically increase Type I error rates in the meta-analysis (Sterling, 1959).”
From Do Salient Social Norms Moderate Mortality Salience Effects? A (Challenging) Meta-Analysis of Terror Management Studies (2023) · cites this paper as Sterling, 1959
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 8
- 1958, Cancer Research 18
- 1957, Publication Manual,
- Edwards A. L., 1950, Experimental Design in Psychological Research
- Lewis D., 1949, Psychological Bulletin, 46, 433, 10.1037/h0059088 · DOI
- Lubin A., 1957, American Psychologist, 8, 519, 10.1037/h0039746 · DOI
- McNemar, 1955, Psychological Statistics,
- Savage L. J., 1954, The Foundations of Statistics
- Walker H. M., 1947, Elementary Statistical Methods
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 601–700 of 888
Active and passive exploration for spatial knowledge acquisition: A meta-analysis
Qin, Y., & Karimi, H. A. (2023) · Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1177/17470218231185121 · Cited by 7
“As most studies in our analysis are published research, it may raise the “file-drawer problem” (Sterling, 1959) in which small studies with lower effect sizes are largely underrepresented.”
A cautionary note on aggregation in educational psychology and beyond
Krammer, G. (2023) · Theory & Psychology · doi:10.1177/09593543231172495 · Cited by 8
“…psychology (Makel & Plucker, 2014; Plucker & Makel, 2021; Rost & Bienefeld, 2019; Travers et al., 2016), and unfortunately ties into psychol-ogy’s tradition of preferring novel and statistically significant findings over thoroughly researched findings (Pigott et al., 2013; Sterling, 1959).”
Optimal Pre-Analysis Plans: Statistical Decisions Subject to Implementability
Kasy, M., & Spiess, J. (2022) · Social Science Research Network · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4922431 · Cited by 7
Effects of digital learning in anaesthesiology
Shih, Y. D., Liu, C.-C., Chang, C.-C., & Lee, Y.-W. (2020) · European Journal of Anaesthesiology · doi:10.1097/eja.0000000000001262 · Cited by 7
MedEdTrials: Protocol registration for medical education research
Masters, K. (2019) · MedEdPublish · doi:10.15694/mep.2019.000125.1 · Cited by 7
The gap between medical and monetary choices under risk persists in decisions for others
Popovic, N. F., Pachur, T., & Gaissmaier, W. (2019) · Journal of Behavioral Decision Making · doi:10.1002/bdm.2121 · Cited by 7
“…are various reasons that could explain this discrepancy: First, due to publication bias, studies with statistically nonsignificant results may have been less likely to be published than studies that report significant results (Ioannidis, Munafò, Fusar‐Poli, Nosek, & David, 2014; Sterling, 1959).”
ResultStudy Registration: Encouraging the Practice of Hypothetical-Deductive Research in the Journal.
Novins, D. K., Althoff, R., Billingsley, M., Cortese, S., Drury, S., Frazier, J., Henderson, S., McCauley, E., & White, T. J. H. (2018) · Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.jaac.2018.10.004 · Cited by 7
P-hacking in academic research
Ingre, M. (2017) · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.3393664.v51 · Cited by 7
“The assumption that the scientific literature is biased is based on a long series of observations indicating that the vast majority of published research findings are positive and supporting the authors’ hypothesis (Fanelli, 2010; Sterling et al., 1995; Sterling, 1959).”
Indirect evidence of reporting biases was found in a survey of medical research studies
Albarqouni, L., López-López, J. A., & Higgins, J. P. T. (2017) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.11.013 · Cited by 7
“[11-13] Second, results within a report of a study may be 60 biased if the authors report the most interesting findings.”
BackgroundAfrican Eve: Hoax or Hypothesis?
Bednarik, R. G. (2013) · Advances in Anthropology · doi:10.4236/aa.2013.34031 · Cited by 5
“The improbably high support research which has reported for initial hypotheses in such humanities as psychology and psychiatry (Sterling, 1959; Klamer et al., 1989; Fanelli, 2010) is several times that yielded in the hard sciences, indicating systematic bias.”
BackgroundMeta‐Regression Models of Economics and Medical Research
Stanley, T. (2010) · doi:10.1002/9781444320398.ch11 · Cited by 7
Meta-analysis and endocrinology.
Petitti, D. B. (1997) · Endocrinology and metabolism clinics of North America (Print) · doi:10.1016/s0889-8529(05)70232-2 · Cited by 7
Why parapsychology cannot become a science
Bunge, M. (1987) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00054595 · Cited by 7
Feder, K. (1987) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00054662 · Cited by 7
Logic of questionable density.
Dotson, C. (1980) · Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport · doi:10.1080/02701367.1980.10609273 · Cited by 7
Is There a Reproducibility Crisis? On the Need for Evidence-based Approaches
Pethick, S., Wass, M., & Michaelis, M. (2025) · International Studies in the Philosophy of Science · doi:10.1080/02698595.2025.2538937 · Cited by 6
Invited review: Enhancing quality of dairy cattle research through adequate power analysis
Wang, K., Arshad, U., & Niu, M. (2025) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2024-25793 · Cited by 10
Soto, M. D., & Schimmack, U. (2024) · Cognition & Emotion · doi:10.1080/02699931.2024.2443016 · Cited by 4
“Concerns about selection bias in psychology journals were first raised by Sterling (1959) who found that psychology journals report over 90% statistically significant results.”
Apophenia and anesthesia: how we sometimes change our practice prematurely
Hanson, N. A., Lavallee, M. B., & Thiele, R. H. (2021) · Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d anesthésie · doi:10.1007/s12630-021-02005-2 · Cited by 8
“Sterling first quantified positive publication bias in 1959, documenting that 97% of published articles from four journals in 1955–1956 reported a rejection of the null hypothesis.(22) This observation has been validated repeatedly.”
BackgroundOpen Science als Beitrag zur Qualität in der Bildungsforschung
Krammer, G., & Svecnik, E. (2020) · Zeitschrift für Bildungsforschung · doi:10.1007/s35834-020-00286-z · Cited by 11
Replications in economic psychology and behavioral economics
Schultze, T., Huber, J., Kirchler, M., & Mojzisch, A. (2019) · Journal of Economic Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.joep.2019.102199 · Cited by 6
Back to the rough ground: From predictability to radical uncertainty
Dalal, F. (2018) · Group Analysis · doi:10.1177/0533316418779855 · Cited by 6
“In two studies spaced over almost 30 years, a researcher Sterling (1959, 1995) noticed that almost every so called scientific psychological study ever published miraculously claimed that their results were statistically significant.”
BackgroundEnough Talk, It's Time to Transform: A Call for Editorial Leadership for a Robust Science
Kepes, S., Keener, S. K., & McDaniel, M. A. (2018) · Industrial and Organizational Psychology · doi:10.1017/iop.2017.83 · Cited by 6
“For example, we have known for decades that publication bias poses a problem to the accuracy of our cumulative scientific knowledge (Rosenthal, 1979; Sterling, 1959).”
BackgroundExcess success for three related papers on racial bias
Francis, G. (2015) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00512 · Cited by 21
“Many previous studies have found evidence that publication bias is common across psychology and other fields (e.g., Sterling, 1959; Sterling et al., 1995; Bakker et al., 2012; Fraley and Vazire, 2014; Francis, 2014a,b; Kühberger et al., 2014).”
In Search Of True Things Worth Knowing: Considerations For A New Article Prototype
Tullett, A. M. (2015) · Social and Personality Psychology Compass · doi:10.1111/spc3.12166 · Cited by 24
“Surveying the range of p-values present in published articles quickly makes it clear that within the current publication system, there is an expectation for p-values under .05 (Fanelli 2010, 2012; Greenwald, 1975; Rosenthal, 1979; Sterling, 1959; Sterling, Rosenbaum, &Weinkam, 1995).”
BackgroundAportaciones de la revisión sistemática y del metaanálisis a la salud pública
Rodríguez, M., & Pérez, S. P. (2006) · Revista Española de Salud Pública · doi:10.1590/s1135-57272006000500007 · Cited by 6
Meta-Analysis: Methodology, Utility, and Limitations
Mancano, M. A., & Bullano, M. F. (1998) · Journal of Pharmacy Practice · doi:10.1177/089719009801100403 · Cited by 6
Schönemann, P. H. (1991) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00065973 · Cited by 7
Deficiency of education concerning the methodological issues in accepting null hypotheses
Harcum, E. R. (1990) · Contemporary Educational Psychology · doi:10.1016/0361-476x(90)90018-v · Cited by 1
Observation versus theory in parapsychology
Child, I. (1987) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00054601 · Cited by 6
Stanford, R. (1987) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00054881 · Cited by 6
STATISTICS IN THE DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF PHYSIOLOGY EXPERIMENTS.
Vleck, L. D. V., & Henderson, C. R. (1965) · Journal of Animal Science · doi:10.2527/jas1965.242559x · Cited by 6
Rezaeian, M. (2016) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.05.007 · Cited by 6
Chappidi, S., Belue, M. J., Harmon, S. A., Jagasia, S., Zhuge, Y., Taşçı, E., Türkbey, B., Singh, J., Camphausen, K. A., & Krauze, A. V. (2025) · PLOS Digital Health · doi:10.1371/journal.pdig.0000755 · Cited by 5
Jerke, J., Velicu, A., Winter, F., & Rauhut, H. (2025) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0305666 · Cited by 7
Salomon, S., Grubmüller, E., Kropf, P., Nickl, E., Rühl, A., Weigel, S., Becker, F., Vital, A. L. A., Laforsch, C., Schott, M., et al. (2024) · Microplastics and Nanoplastics · doi:10.1186/s43591-024-00088-4 · Cited by 7
“Bias arises when some effect sizes are published selectively, e.g., when only significant outcomes are published or when confirmatory results are preferentially published [98].”
BackgroundShaw, S. D., & Nave, G. (2023) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.114129 · Cited by 8
Sotola, L. K., & Credé, M. (2023) · Journal of Research in Personality · doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2023.104435 · Cited by 4
Sex differences in self-reported spatial abilities and affect: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Matthews, V., Ramirez, C., Metcalfe, K. B., Wiseman, M., & Voyer, D. (2023) · Spatial Cognition and Computation · doi:10.1080/13875868.2023.2250537 · Cited by 7
“It is therefore possible that research producing non-significant results did not enter our meta-analysis because they are less likely to get published (Sterling, 1959).”
Ciubotariu, I. I., & Bosch, G. (2023) · PLoS Computational Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1011160 · Cited by 5
“Also called the “file drawer phenomenon” [65], this can be detrimental to the scientific community, as null results may not be empty of biological meaning and can be as informative as “statistically significant” results that lack replication [66].”
BackgroundThe subject of knowledge in collaborative science
Tunç, D. U. (2023) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/s11229-023-04080-y · Cited by 5
“…of results or studies may arise not only due to individual factors such as lack of scientific integrity but also due to factors that belong to the structure of the scientific community, for instance through publication bias (Sterling, 1959; Sutton, 2009) or misaligned incentives (Heesen, 2018).”
BackgroundPowell, J., Kalinowski, S., Taper, M., Rotella, J., Davis, C., & Garrott, R. A. (2023) · Entropy · doi:10.3390/e25030403 · Cited by 5
“The inability of modern statistical approaches to hypothesis testing to address the validity of the null hypothesis can lead to a misinterpretation of the results and/or a reduced likelihood of publication [3], a phenomenon known as the file-drawer problem [4,5].”
BackgroundIs the Psychopathic Brain an Artifact of Coding Bias? A Systematic Review
Jalava, J., Griffiths, S. Y., Larsen, R. R., & Alcott, B. E. (2021) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.654336 · Cited by 11
“For decades, psychological research has been criticized for producing an unrealistically high proportion of positive findings (Sterling, 1959; Greenwald, 1975; Sterling et al., 1995; Fanelli, 2012).”
BackgroundExtraordinary claims, extraordinary evidence? A discussion
Shiffrin, R. M., Matzke, D., Crystal, J. D., Wagenmakers, E., Chandramouli, S., Vandekerckhove, J., Zorzi, M., Morey, R. D., & Murphy, M. C. (2021) · Learning & Behavior · doi:10.3758/s13420-021-00474-5 · Cited by 7
“If publications are filtered by their results, this condition is violated, the published results are no longer an unbiased realization of the empirical procedure, and such publications therefore belong on the untrustworthy side of the line (see, e.g., Sterling, 1959).”
MethodUnlucky Number 13? Manipulating Evidence Subject to Snooping
Hassler, U., & Pohle, M. (2022) · International Statistical Review · doi:10.1111/insr.12488 · Cited by 4
“; see also Sterling et al. (1995).”
The Changing Landscape of Journalology in Medicine
Wilson, M., & Moher, D. (2018) · Seminars in Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2018.11.009 · Cited by 6
Acar, F., Seurinck, R., Eickhoff, S., & Moerkerke, B. (2017) · bioRxiv · doi:10.1101/189001 · Cited by 5
“Publication bias is an issue that has been discussed in science since the 18th century (Ferriar, 1792; Sterling, 1959; Hall, 1965) where researchers note that journals are mainly filled with papers that report statistically significant results.”
BackgroundMack, C. A. (2014) · Journal of Micro/Nanopatterning Materials and Metrology · doi:10.1117/1.jmm.13.3.030101 · Cited by 3
“Further, there is some evidence that most scientific studies are never replicated, so that bad results can linger in the collective consciousness of the scientific community for a very long time.(2) The “publish or perish” mentality in academia, coupled with a publication bias against the null result, means that the s…”
BackgroundIncentivising reproducible research
Button, K., & Munafo, M. (2013) · Cortex; a journal devoted to the study of the nervous system and behavior · doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2013.09.011 · Cited by 5
“These issues are not new e concerns about low statistical power and publication bias predate our own (Button et al., 2013a) by at least 50 years (Cohen, 1962; Sterling, 1959).”
BackgroundRevisiting the Association between Environmental Tobacco Smoke Exposure and Lung Cancer Risk
Lee, P. N., Fry, J., & Forey, B. (2001) · Indoor and Built Environment · doi:10.1177/1420326x0201100202 · Cited by 5
Peer review: An unflattering picture
Adams, K. M. (1991) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00065687 · Cited by 5
Journal availability and the quality of published research
Fletcher, J. M. (1991) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00065808 · Cited by 5
Some indices of the reliability of peer review
Rosenthal, R. (1991) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00065948 · Cited by 3
Experimental evidence for paranormal phenomena
Hansel, C. E. M. (1987) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00054728 · Cited by 5
When immovable objections meet irresistible evidence: A case of selective reporting
Nelson, R., & Radin, D. (1987) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00054807 · Cited by 5
COLLECTIVE DELUSION IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES: PUBLISHING INCENTIVES FOR EMPIRICAL ABUSE
Weimer, D. L. (1986) · doi:10.1111/j.1541-1338.1986.tb00522.x · Cited by 5
Betting After the Race Is Over. The Perils of Post Hoc Hypothesizing
Payne, J. L., & Dyer, J. (1975) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.2307/2110545 · Cited by 5
Beyond the p Value Dichotomy: Alternatives for Statistical Inference—A Critical Review
Ferreira, M. H. L., Câmara, L. C., & Carvas, N. (2026) · Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice · doi:10.1111/jep.70373 · Cited by 5
Huang, Y., Zheng, D., Zhou, Z., Wang, H., Li, Y., Zheng, H., Tan, J., Wu, J., Yang, Q., Tian, H., et al. (2024) · Frontiers in Oncology · doi:10.3389/fonc.2024.1345737 · Cited by 3
The Two Sides of the Environmental Kuznets Curve: A Socio-Semantic Analysis
Menezes, T., Pottier, A., & Roth, C. (2023) · OEconomia · doi:10.4000/oeconomia.15729 · Cited by 2
“First, there is a general tendency in research to over-publish significant results vs. null results (e.g., Sterling, 1959; Sterling et al., 1995; Ferraro and Shukla, 2020).”
ResultWhat’s in Your File Drawer? The Case of the Missing Null in Criminology and Criminal Justice
Crow, M. S., Smykla, J. O., O’Brien, H., Cerna, T., Johnson, A., Pisaris, S., Suarez, M., & Wilder, J. (2022) · Crime & Delinquency · doi:10.1177/00111287221090959 · Cited by 4
“For example, publication bias was first examined in psychology by Sterling (1959) who reported that out of 294 articles across four leading psychology journals, only eight (2.7”
BackgroundInfluentialWhat’s Right and Wrong in Preclinical Science: A Matter of Principled Investigation
Smith, L. N. (2022) · Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnbeh.2022.805661 · Cited by 4
“This distortion arises most directly from constraints on publishing, namely a near requirement for statistical significance, which has been described for over 60 years (Sterling, 1959; Rosenthal, 1979) and affects both basic research and clinical trials (Bowcut et al., 2021).”
BackgroundP-Hacking in Experimental Accounting Studies
Chang, X., Gao, H.-S., & Li, W. (2021) · Social Science Research Network · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3762342 · Cited by 4
“…significant results, while filing away the rest (for examples of p-hacking, see e.g., Simmons, Nelson, and Simonsohn, 2011; Head et al., 2015; Harvey, 2017).6 The concerns over the negative effect of p-hacking can be traced back to Sterling (1959), who point out an unconscious type of p-hacking.”
BackgroundMurakami, K., Hirota, T., Shimoda, S., & Yazaki, T. (2020) · Journal of Agricultural Meteorology · doi:10.2480/agrmet.d-20-00027 · Cited by 4
“Reporting negative results along with the details of the data, methods, and approaches should be promoted in machine learning studies in meteorology to avoid publication bias ( Sterling, 1959 ) .”
BackgroundIncentive-Compatible Critical ValuesPreprint
McCloskey, A., & Michaillat, P. (2022) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4021797 · Cited by 1
Reliability of Inference: Analogs of Replication in Qualitative Research
Fairfield, T., & Charman, A. E. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108762519.012 · Cited by 6
Robust Science: A Review of Journal Practices in Industrial-Organizational Psychology
Feeney, J. R. (2018) · Industrial and Organizational Psychology · doi:10.1017/iop.2017.84 · Cited by 4
Systematic review and meta-analysis of the Skills for Social and Academic Success (SASS) program
Mychailyszyn, M. P. (2017) · Advances in School Mental Health Promotion · doi:10.1080/1754730x.2017.1285709 · Cited by 5
“The scholarly standards of the peer review process have led to the speculation that studies which have made it to print are more likely to have obtained statistically significant findings as compared to those that were never published (Rotton, Foos, Van Meek, & Levitt, 1995; Sterling, 1959).”
ResultNot for Your Eyes: Information Concealed through Publication Bias
Liesegang, T. J., Albert, D. M., & SCHACHAT, A. P. (2008) · American Journal of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2008.07.034 · Cited by 6
Justice, efficiency and epistemology in the peer review of scientific manuscripts
Mahoney, M. J. (1991) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00065900 · Cited by 3
Toward openness and fairness in the review process
Rourke, B. P. (1991) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x0006595x · Cited by 4
Chairman's action: The importance of executive decisions in peer review
Tyrer, P. J. (1991) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00065997 · Cited by 3
Should the blinded lead the blinded?
Lock, S. (1991) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00065894 · Cited by 3
On forecasting validity and finessing reliability
Gilmore, J. B. (1991) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00065821 · Cited by 4
The Effects of Publication Selection on Test Probabilities and Estimator Distributions
Denton, F. (1990) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1990.tb01027.x · Cited by 4
Wolins, L. (1987) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00054947 · Cited by 4
Broch, H. (1987) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00054571 · Cited by 4
Cicchetti, D. (1987) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00054613 · Cited by 4
Schulman, J., Kupst, M. J., & Suran, B. (1977) · doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1977.tb01794.x · Cited by 4
Curriculum Research: Problems, Techniques, and Prospects
Macdonald, J., & Raths, J. (1963) · doi:10.2307/1169727 · Cited by 4
Chapter IV: Research Tools: Statistical Methods
Michael, W., & Hunka, S. (1957) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/00346543030005440 · Cited by 4
Like owner, like dog – A systematic review about similarities in dog-human dyads
Bender, Y., Roth, F., Schweinberger, S. R., Witte, S., & Bräuer, J. (2025) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.paid.2024.112884 · Cited by 4
“Although publication bias (Sterling, 1959) may be on the decline and is currently being mitigated by measures such as registered reports (for overview, see Hardwicke et al., 2020), it remains a major limitation, particularly for meta-analyses and systematic reviews.”
MethodSesgos de publicación, valor de la información y su efecto en las políticas de salud
Campillo-Artero, C. (2012) · Revista Cubana de Salud Pública · doi:10.1590/s0864-34662012000500005 · Cited by 4
“Las guías más aceptadas a escala internacional para su realización y revisión han revelado que cuando la magnitud de estos sesgos es notable aumenta el riesgo de que en los metanálisis se acaben notificando intervalos de confianza estrechos de estimaciones puntuales espurias.(1,4,15,16,25,26)”
BackgroundDorfner, T., Förtsch, C., & Neuhaus, B. (2017) · Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften · doi:10.1007/s40573-017-0058-3 · Cited by 23
Reproducibility, replicability, robustness, and generalizability in corpus linguistics
Flanagan, J. (2025) · International Journal of Corpus Linguistics · doi:10.1075/ijcl.24113.fla · Cited by 6
Servitization and firm performance: a p-curve analysis
Latan, H., Jabbour, A. B. L. D. S., Jabbour, C. J. C., Ali, M., & Filho, M. G. (2024) · Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing · doi:10.1108/jbim-07-2023-0392 · Cited by 3
Classifying Positive Results in Clinical Psychology Using Natural Language Processing
Schiekiera, L., Diederichs, J., & Niemeyer, H. (2024) · Zeitschrift für Psychologie · doi:10.1027/2151-2604/a000563 · Cited by 2
Revisiting the left ear advantage for phonetic cues to talker identification.
Drown, L., Philip, B., Francis, A. L., & Theodore, R. M. (2022) · Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · doi:10.1121/10.0015093 · Cited by 3
Messaging Should Reflect the Nuanced Relationship between Land Change and Zoonotic Disease Risk
Mader, A., Waters, N. A., Kawazu, E. C., Marvier, M., Monnin, N., & Salkeld, D. J. (2022) · BioScience · doi:10.1093/biosci/biac075 · Cited by 4
“In all of these cases, nonsignificant results (i.e., no relationship between land change and spillover risk) are likely to be underreported, as is expressed in the file drawer problem (Sterling 1959, Csada et al. 1996, Wood 2020, West and Bergstrom 2021).”
Characteristics of completed clinical trials for spinal cord injury from 1999 to 2020
Onyedimma, C., Moinuddin, F. M., Yolcu, Y. U., Illies, A. J. C., Sammak, S. E., Trammell, B. C., Hunt, C., Qu, W., & Bydon, M. (2021) · Journal of Clinical Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/j.jocn.2021.10.002 · Cited by 3
Magic: A Theoretical Reassessment †
Winkelman, M. A. (2021) · Anthropology of Consciousness · doi:10.1111/anoc.12142 · Cited by 3
Nochmals: Über Krippenbetreuung
Behncke, B., Geist, G., Israel, A., Holl, J., Taubner, S., & Lamparter, U. (2021) · Forum der Psychoanalyse · doi:10.1007/s00451-021-00439-4 · Cited by 3
Measurement Replication in Qualitative and Quantitative Studies
Reiter, D. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108762519.011 · Cited by 4
Gerring, J., Karcher, S., & Apfeld, B. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108762519.015 · Cited by 3
Működési zavarok és megújulási törekvések a tudományos pszichológiában, a 21. század elején
Szokolszky, Á. (2018) · Magyar Pszichológiai Szemle · doi:10.1556/0016.2018.73.4.3 · Cited by 3
Barry, A., Valdez, D., Goodson, P., Szucs, L. E., & Reyes, J. V. (2018) · Journal of American College Health · doi:10.1080/07448481.2018.1470091 · Cited by 3
“dates from journal editorial boards do have the capability of altering a journal’s academic standards.(34)”
BackgroundModerator's view: Meta-analysis: the best knowledge but not always shining gold.
Zoccali, C. (2016) · Nephrology, Dialysis and Transplantation · doi:10.1093/ndt/gfw093 · Cited by 3
“He intuited early on the risk of bias created by the preferential publication of positive studies [5].”
BackgroundHo, D. E. (2013) · Journal of Empirical Legal Studies · doi:10.1111/jels.12031 · Cited by 3
Common Errors in Statistics (and How to Avoid Them)
Good, P. I., & Hardin, J. W. (2006) · doi:10.1002/0471998524 · Cited by 3
“Inconclusive or negative results seldom appear in print [Sterling, 1959 ; G ö tzsche, 1987 ; Begg and Berlin, 1988 ; Chalmers et al., 1990 ; Easterbrook et al., 1991 ) and are unlikely even to be submitted for publication.”
Metadata
- Authors
- Sterling, T. D.
- Affiliations
- University of Cincinnati (US)
- Corresponding author
- Sterling, Theodore D.
- Venue
- Journal of the American Statistical Association
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1959-03
- Volume
- 54
- Issue
- 285
- Pages
- 30-34
- ISSN
- 0162-1459 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-274X
- OpenAlex
- W2062908954
- Cited by
- 964
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 35 · 2022: 46 · 2021: 48 · 2020: 55 · 2019: 46 · 2018: 51 · 2017: 55 · 2016: 34 · 2015: 31 · 2014: 43 · 2013: 32 · 2012: 30
- FWCI
- 9.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of the American Statistical Association (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Social Sciences › Education › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Academic Publishing and Open Access
- Keywords
- publication bias, non-significant results, selective publication, significance testing, false positives, replication, research credibility
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
