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 701–800 of 888
A Simple Method For Detecting And Adjusting Meta- Analyses For Publication Bias
Richy, F., & Reginster, J. (2005) · The Internet Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.5580/1980 · Cited by 3
A few considerations in the design and analysis of experiments in neurotoxicology.
Maurissen, J. (1995) · Toxicology Letters · doi:10.1016/0378-4274(95)03554-0 · Cited by 3
The process of peer review: Unanswered questions
Nelson, L. D. (1991) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00065924 · Cited by 2
What to do about peer review: Is the cure worse than the disease?
Zentall, T. R. (1991) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00066012 · Cited by 3
Peer review: Explicit criteria and training can help
Delcomyn, F. (1991) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00065778 · Cited by 3
R. A. Fisher and the 0.05 level of significance in medical studies.
Jones, P. K. (1988) · Journal of Laboratory and Clinical Medicine · doi:10.5555/uri:pii:0022214388900716 · Cited by 3
Random generators, ganzfelds, analysis, and theory
Dawes, R. (1987) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00054625 · Cited by 3
How to dismiss evidence without really trying
Braude, S. (1987) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x0005456x · Cited by 3
Is searching for a soul inherently unscientific
Tart, C. (1987) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00054893 · Cited by 3
Axioms in science, classical statistics, and parapsychological research
Gilmore, J. B. (1987) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00054704 · Cited by 3
EVALUATING DECEPTION IN PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH1
Stricker, L. J., Messick, S., & Jackson, D. (1968) · doi:10.1002/j.2333-8504.1968.tb00718.x · Cited by 3
The Identification and Prevention of Publication Bias in the Social Sciences and Economics
Weiß, B., & Wagner, M. A. (2011) · Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik · doi:10.1515/jbnst-2011-5-608 · Cited by 16
“One of the first studies on publication bias was performed by Sterling (1959) and revealed that, of 294 articles published in psychological journals, 286 (97”
BackgroundAn Average Power Primer: Clarifying Misconceptions about Average Power and Replicability
Soto, M. D., & Schimmack, U. (2026) · Meta-Psychology · doi:10.15626/mp.2025.4767 · Cited by 2
“For example, the original studies in the Reproducibility Project had 97 significant results, which is typical for psychology journals (Sterling et al., 1995; Sterling, 1959).”
InfluentialA response to Pek et al.’s commentary on Z-curve: clarifying the assumptions of selection models
Schimmack, U., & Soto, M. (2026) · Cognition & Emotion · doi:10.1080/02699931.2026.2678998 · Cited by 2
“However, focal tests had higher success rates, replicating the historically documented pattern of very high proportions of statistically significant results in psychology (Sterling, 1959; Sterling et al., 1995).”
Schimmack, U., & Soto, M. (2026) · Communication Methods and Measures · doi:10.1080/19312458.2026.2658505 · Cited by 2
Torka, A., & Hüffmeier, J. (2025) · Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology · doi:10.1111/joop.70057 · Cited by 2
Z-Curve Plot: A Visual Diagnostic for Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis
Bartoš, F., & Schimmack, U. (2025) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.07171 · Cited by 2
“An important concern for the validity of meta-analytic conclusions is publication bias, the suppression of statistically non-significant and nonconforming findings (Sterling, 1959; Rosenthal & Gaito, 1964).”
Dialogues about the practice of science
Shiffrin, R. M., Trueblood, J. S., Kellen, D., & Vandekerckhove, J. (2025) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2423782122 · Cited by 2
Ochsner, M. (2024) · Swiss Political Science Review · doi:10.1111/spsr.12618 · Cited by 2
Evidence of HARKing in mouse behavioural tests of anxiety
Rosso, M., Herrera, A., Würbel, H., & Voelkl, B. (2024) · Royal Society Open Science · doi:10.1098/rsos.231744 · Cited by 2
“Yet, publication bias is a common place [9–11].”
BackgroundUntrustworthy Evidence in Dishonesty Research
Bartos̆, F. (2024) · Meta-Psychology · doi:10.15626/mp.2023.3987 · Cited by 4
From fact to fake: The importance of being significant
Hassler, U. (2023) · Research in Statistics · doi:10.1080/27684520.2023.2236995 · Cited by 2
Thakur, P., & Jha, V. (2021) · Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology · doi:10.1016/j.bjorl.2021.11.004 · Cited by 2
Nonparametric estimation of unrestricted distributions and their jumps
Mynbaev, K., Martins-Filho, C., & Henderson, D. (2021) · Canadian journal of statistics · doi:10.1002/cjs.11636 · Cited by 2
“This phenomenon has been known for some time (Sterling, 1959) and has been studied in great detail in Brodeur et al. (2016).”
BackgroundResponse to Commentaries on Sakaluk (2020)
Sakaluk, J. K. (2021) · Archives of Sexual Behavior · doi:10.1007/s10508-021-02020-w · Cited by 2
“Sterling (1959), long ago, articulated the underlying problem in the context of multi-study papers: reviewers and Editors prefer papers describing significant findings, thereby creating selection pressure in favor of papers describing an “error of the first kind” (p. 30).”
BackgroundReplication for Quantitative Research
Jeremy Freese, A., & Peterson, D. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108762519.010 · Cited by 4
What’s Wrong with Replicating the Old Boys’ Networks?
Teele, D. L. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108762519.016 · Cited by 2
Infinite diameter confidence sets in Hedges’ publication bias model
Moss, J. (2022) · Journal of the Korean Statistical Society · doi:10.1007/s42952-022-00169-1 · Cited by 1
“…scientific literature is not unbiased, as studies with significant p-values tend to be published with a greater probability than other studies (Easterbrook, Berlin, Gopalan, & Matthews, 1991), a phenomenon called publication bias by Sterling (1959) and the file-drawer problem by Rosenthal (1979).”
ResultMurphy, K. R. (2019) · SA Journal of Industrial Psychology · doi:10.4102/sajip.v45i0.1717 · Cited by 2
“For decades, methodologists (e.g. Cohen, 1962, 1988, 1994; Fidler, Thomason, Cumming, Finch, & Leeman, 2004; Meehl, 1978; Murphy, Myors, & Wolach, 2014; Schmidt, 1996; Sterling, 1959) have been warning the research community about the perils of relying on NHST as a method for evaluating research results.”
MethodSealed Envelope Submissions Foster Research Integrity
Dufwenberg, M. A., & Martinsson, P. (2019) · Revue économique · doi:10.3917/reco.706.0919 · Cited by 5
Research integrity and the law that never was
Mayer, M. G. (2018) · BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine · doi:10.1136/bmjebm-2018-110993 · Cited by 2
Improving the conduct of meta-analyses of observational studies
Lee, P. N. (2018) · World Journal of Meta-Analysis · doi:10.13105/wjma.v6.i3.21 · Cited by 3
On Evolution of Statistical Inference
Fraser, D. (2018) · Journal of Statistical Theory and Applications (JSTA) · doi:10.2991/jsta.2018.17.2.1 · Cited by 2
“It was not until 1959 that Sterling (1959) gave serious and well documented criticism of the Reject Accept procedure.”
Guest Editorial: Background and Rationale for Clinical Trial Registration
Abrams, H., Chisolm, T., Sanchez, V. A., Arnold, M. L., & Galster, J. (2018) · Ear and Hearing · doi:10.1097/aud.0000000000000550 · Cited by 2
Registered Reports for Student Research
King, M. B., Dablander, F., Jakob, L., Agan, M. L. F., Huber, F. A., Haslbeck, J. M. B., & Brecht, K. F. (2016) · Journal of European Psychology Students · doi:10.5334/jeps.401 · Cited by 4
“There is a bias against the publication of null results (Bishop, 2013; Sterling, 1959).”
BackgroundCommentary for history special issue of Research Synthesis Methods
Chalmers, I. (2015) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1002/jrsm.1144 · Cited by 2
“Social scientists first provided quantified evidence of biased reporting of research (Sterling, 1959; Smart, 1964; Mahoney, 1977), and they proposed statistical approaches to dealing with the problem in research syntheses (for example, Rosenthal, 1979).”
BackgroundChiapella, J., Kuhl, J. C., Demaio, P., & Amarilla, L. (2014) · doi:10.4033/iee.v7i1.5076 · Cited by 2
“The existence of the “publication bias” suggests positive results are more likely to be published (Sterling 1959, Boulesteix 2010, Szapkowicz 2010), which could push researchers to explore multiple methodological alternatives until a positive result is found.”
BackgroundFleischer, D., Bölter, M., & Möller, R. (2012) · doi:10.1016/j.polar.2012.01.001 · Cited by 2
“This problem was first identified by Sterling (1959).”
BackgroundClinical trial registration atTobacco Control
Bero, L. A. (2006) · Tobacco Control · doi:10.1136/tc.2006.018887 · Cited by 2
Unreliable peer review: Causes and cures of human misery
Colman, A. M. (1991) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00065742 · Cited by 2
Evaluating scholarly works: How many reviewers? How much anonymity?
Cone, J. D. (1991) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00065754 · Cited by 2
Consensus and the reliability of peer-review evaluations
Cole, S. (1991) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00065730 · Cited by 2
Peer review is not enough: Editors must work with librarians to ensure access to research
Fuller, S. (1991) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x0006581x · Cited by 2
Psi: Repeatability, falsifiability, and science
Spaños, N., & de Groot, H. P. (1987) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x0005487x · Cited by 2
On rustles, wolf interpretations, and other wild speculations
Navon, D. (1987) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00054790 · Cited by 2
Are the conventional explanations of psi anomalies adequate
Palmer, J. (1987) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00054819 · Cited by 2
Parapsychology: The science of ostensible anomalies
Hyman, R. (1987) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00054741 · Cited by 2
Broughton, R. (1987) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00054583 · Cited by 2
Factual impossibility and concomitant variations
Flew, A. (1987) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00054674 · Cited by 2
In what respect is psi anomalous
Beloff, J. (1987) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00054522 · Cited by 2
Anomaly versus artifact, or anomalous artifact?
Truzzi, M. (1987) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00054911 · Cited by 2
Anomalous phenomena and orthodox science
Eysenck, H. (1987) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00054650 · Cited by 2
Hsu, L. (1980) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.3102/0013189x009005006 · Cited by 2
Discussion of Paper by I. J. Good, April 9, 1968
Anscombe, F. (1969) · doi:10.1080/01621459.1969.10500954 · Cited by 2
Chapter IX: Curriculum Research: Problems, Techniques, and Prospects
Macdonald, J., & Raths, J. (1963) · doi:10.3102/00346543033003322 · Cited by 2
Beliefs versus reality: People overestimate the actual dishonesty of others
Martuza, J., Thorbjørnsen, H., & Sjåstad, H. (2026) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2026.104904
Responsible Science MattersPreprint
Faff, R. (2021) · Social Science Research Network · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3880341 · Cited by 2
Contributions towards understanding and building sustainable sciencePreprint
Hartgerink, C. H. J. (2019) · Thesis Commons (OSF Preprints) · doi:10.31237/osf.io/4wtpc · Cited by 3
Ausmaß und Risikofaktoren des Publication Bias in der deutschen Soziologie
Auspurg, K., Hinz, T., & Schneck, A. (2014) · KZfSS Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie · doi:10.1007/s11577-014-0284-3 · Cited by 16
Reproducibility in Information Retrieval
Maistro, M., Breuer, T., & Ferro, N. (2026) · Foundations and Trends® in Information Retrieval · doi:10.1108/ftinr-05-2025-0087 · Cited by 1
RDoFlow: Automatically assessing under-specified statistical analyses in HCI
Grunde-McLaughlin, M., Liu, W., Patil, R., Migineishvili, N., Reif, E., Krishna, R., Weld, D. S., & Heer, J. (2026) · ACM International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI) · doi:10.1145/3742413.3789160
“Nevertheless, NHST studies in HCI have received longstanding criticism for potential QRPs [91].”
LLMs, Reasoning and Plagiarism
Mossel, E. (2025) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.02380 · Cited by 1
“Since data regarding failed attempts is less likely to be reported or published, this selection bias may result in an exaggerated evaluation of the benefits of LLMs, a well-known concern in scientific publications [37, 16].”
Standardized mean difference effect sizes for interval-valued data. A distance-based approach
Lubiano, M. A., García-García, J., García-Izquierdo, A., & Castaño, A. M. (2025) · Journal of Mathematical Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jmp.2025.102954 · Cited by 1
Derksen, B., Larsen, A. V., Nailor, P., Pedersen, A. H., & Zurcher, S. (2025) · Nordic Perspectives on Open Science · doi:10.7557/11.8280 · Cited by 1
“The incentive behind such a cultural shift is to address a number of challenges in academia at present, such as positive results bias (Sterling, 1959; Song et al. , 2000; Nakagawa et al. , 2022) , a reproducibility crisis (Ioannidis, 2005; Open Science Collaboration, 2015) , transparency in the…”
Profiling Article Retractions in Accounting and Finance Research
Charitou, A., Leventis, S., & Nerantzidis, M. (2025) · Social Science Research Network · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4987681 · Cited by 1
McWay, R., & Braaksma, M. (2025) · World Development Perspectives · doi:10.1016/j.wdp.2025.100707 · Cited by 1
Publication Bias in Academic Decision-Making in Clinical Psychology
Schiekiera, L., Eichel, K., Heßelmann, F., Sachse, J., Müller, S. P., & Niemeyer, H. (2025) · Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/25152459251372134 · Cited by 1
“Replicating the classic evidence of publication bias—first noted by Sterling (1959)—in a controlled experiment let us examine how strongly preferences for statistically significant and hypothesis-consistent results shape researchers’ evaluations of abstracts with respect to publication, citation,…”
Publication Bias in Randomized Controlled Trials of Hypospadias Surgical Repair: A Systematic Review
Nainggolan, E., Wahyudi, I., Rodjani, A., Situmorang, G. R., Chowdhury, M. E. H., Raharja, P. A. R., & Abbas, T. O. (2025) · International Journal of Urology · doi:10.1111/iju.70153
Shang, B.-H., Yang, F., Lin, Y., Białka, S., van Rensburg, D. V., Tonelli, A. R., Islam, S. M. S., Kawagoe, I., Rhéaume, C., & Zhang, K.-P. (2024) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0305027 · Cited by 1
Alternative to the statistical mass confusion of testing for “no effect”
Morgan, J. L. (2024) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.07114 · Cited by 1
“Problems with significance testing have been pointed out since it was popularized by R. A. Fisher a hundred years ago (Rozeboom, 1960; Goodman, 1993; Meehl, 1967; Berkson, 1938; Hogben, 1957; Bakan, 1966; Sterling, 1959; Calin-Jageman, 2022; Morrison, 1970).”
In models we trust: preregistration, large samples, and replication may not suffice
Spiess, M., & Jordan, P. (2023) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1266447 · Cited by 1
“In fact, criticism of the methodological practice has addressed a wide range of aspects, from science policy and human bias (e.g., Sterling, 1959; Rosenthal, 1979; Sterling et al., 1995; Pratkanis, 2017) over rather general methodological approaches (e.g., Meehl, 1967, 1990; Hahn, 2011; Button et…”
BackgroundWhen More Is Less: Pitfalls of significance testing
Hassler, U. (2022) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2211.11814 · Cited by 1
Finding Significant p in Coffee or Tea: Mildly Distasteful
Sarsa, S., Hellas, A., & Leinonen, J. (2022) · European Conference on Modelling and Simulation · doi:10.1145/3564721.3565953 · Cited by 1
“cation bias [23, 25], it is a major issue when interpreting results, especially for meta-analyses [7, 18] as distortions in peer-reviewed evidence accumulate.”
BackgroundPublish without bias or perish without replications
Ventura, R. (2022) · Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A · doi:10.1016/j.shpsa.2022.08.010 · Cited by 2
What Behavioral Scientists Are Unwilling to Accept
Petrinovich, L. F. (2021) · Journal of Methods and Measurement in the Social Sciences · doi:10.2458/jmmss.3061 · Cited by 2
“(p. 315) Sterling (1959) surveyed the articles published in four APA journals in one year and Greenwald (1975) those published in one year in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.”
BackgroundBruns, H., & Lingo, E. (2021) · Emerald Group Publishing Limited eBooks · doi:10.1108/s0733-558x20210000075008 · Cited by 1
Poecze, F., & Tjoa, A. M. (2020) · International Conference on Informatics and Computational Sciences (ICICoS) · doi:10.1109/icicos51170.2020.9299055 · Cited by 1
Transparency and Reproducibility: Conceptualizing the Problem
Christensen, G., & Miguel, E. A. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108762519.006 · Cited by 4
Gerring, J., & Cojocaru, L. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108762519.005 · Cited by 1
Bak, T. H. (2019) · Studies in bilingualism · doi:10.1075/sibil.57.06bak · Cited by 1
Publication Bias—A Threat to Scientific Validity
Sharma, B. (2018) · Homœopathic Links · doi:10.1055/s-0039-1677673 · Cited by 1
Higher significance with smaller samples: A modified Sequential Probability Ratio Test
Pramanik, S., Johnson, V., & Bhattacharya, A. (2018) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1811.08478 · Cited by 1
p -Values What are they? Who do we Ask?
Das, F. (2018) · doi:10.19080/bboaj.2018.06.555693 · Cited by 1
“The approach then became widely used for making an Accept-Reject of articles for publication in scientific journals; but Sterling [3] offered a detailed discussion to show that it provided just a way to a wealth of publications with incorrect results.”
MethodSetting-up a clinical trial: Some methodological recommendations
Colombo, D., Cipresso, P., Pedroli, E., & Riva, G. (2017) · Anuario de Psicología/The UB Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.anpsic.2017.12.001
Hypotheses presence and acceptance in seven soil science journals
Nardi, P., Matteo, G. D., & Hartemink, A. E. (2014) · Geoderma · doi:10.1016/j.geoderma.2014.12.005 · Cited by 1
“In addition, the tendency for researchers to submit manuscripts and of editors to accept papers based on the strength and outcome of the research findings is well known (Sterling, 1959; Sterling et al., 1995; Chalmers, 1990).”
BackgroundGillon, J. (2013) · Indian Journal of Medical Ethics · doi:10.20529/ijme.2013.051 · Cited by 1
Liu, L., Aberasturi, S., Axtell, K., & Richmond, A. (2007) · Computers in the Schools · doi:10.1300/j025v24n01_10 · Cited by 1
“…methodological and empirical researchers have found significant evidence of publication bias in the areas of psychology (Cohen, 1962; Smart, 1964; Sterling, 1959), science and engineering (Kennedy, 2004; Scargle, 2000), medicine (Callaham et al., 1998; Stern & Simes, 1997), healthcare (Egger,…”
BackgroundChurchill, R. C. (2003) · Epidemiologia e Psichiatria Sociale · doi:10.1017/s1121189x00002906 · Cited by 2
“Publication bias and the practices associated with it (such as the selective reporting of statistically significant results in studies with multiple outcomes) have been shown to prevail for over 30 years in the psychology literature (Sterling, 1959; Sterling et al, 1995) and is a widespread problem across the whole of…”
La relevancia de las publicaciones de trabajos de investigación con »resultados negativos«
Mestre, M. P. (2002) · Revista Clínica Española · doi:10.1016/s0014-2565(02)71151-x · Cited by 1
Prevention and treatment of CME after cataract surgery.
Sharma, S. (1998) · Ophthalmology (Rochester, Minn.) · doi:10.1016/s0161-6420(98)91110-1 · Cited by 1
Wasserman, G. S. (1991) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00066000 · Cited by 1
Never say never again: Rapprochement may be nearer than you think!
Krippner, S. (1987) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00054765 · Cited by 1
Are there any “communications anomalies”?
Sanders, J. (1987) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00054856 · Cited by 1
Psi: Anomalous correlation or anomalous explanation?
Railton, P. (1987) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00054844 · Cited by 1
Vassy, Z. (1987) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00054935 · Cited by 1
Orthodoxy and excommunication in science
Donderi, D. (1987) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00054637 · Cited by 1
Parapsychology as a search for the soul: Psi anomalies and dualist research programs
Dybvig, M. (1987) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00054649 · Cited by 1
Are scientists materialistic monists
Woodward, W. (1987) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00054959 · Cited by 1
Parker, A. (1987) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00054820 · Cited by 1
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
