The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Beyond Publication Bias
Open accessAbstract
Abstract. This review considers several meta-regression and graphical methods that can differentiate genuine empirical effect from publication bias. Publication selection exists when editors, reviewers, or researchers have a preference for statistically significant results. Because all areas of empirical research are susceptible to publication selection, any average or tally of significant/insignificant studies is likely to be biased and potentially misleading. Meta-regression analysis can see through the murk of random sampling error and selected misspecification bias to identify the underlying statistical structures that characterize genuine empirical effect. Meta-significance testing and precision-effect testing (PET) are offered as a means to identify empirical effect beyond publication bias and are applied to four areas of empirical economics research – minimum wage effects, union-productivity effects, price elasticities, and tests of the natural rate hypothesis.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis
Higgins, J. P. T., & Thompson, S. G. (2002) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1186 · Cited by 36,763
Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias
Begg, C. B., & Mazumdar, M. (1994) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2533446 · Cited by 16,955
The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results.
Rosenthal, R. (1979) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638 · Cited by 9,068
Publication and related bias in meta-analysis
Sterne, J. A. C., Gavaghan, D., & Egger, M. (2000) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(00)00242-0 · Cited by 2,282
Empirical assessment of effect of publication bias on meta-analyses
Sutton, A. J. (2000) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.320.7249.1574 · Cited by 1,398
A comparison of methods to detect publication bias in meta‐analysis
Macaskill, P., Walter, S. D., & Irwig, L. (2001) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.698 · Cited by 1,286
Sterling, T. D. (1959) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1959.10501497 · Cited by 964
Modeling Publication Selection Effects in Meta-Analysis
Hedges, L. V. (1992) · Statistical Science · doi:10.1214/ss/1177011364 · Cited by 359
Publication Bias (The "File-Drawer Problem") in Scientific Inference
Scargle, J. D. (1999) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.physics/9909033 · Cited by 313
Cited by
The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis
(2019) · doi:10.7758/9781610448864 · Cited by 4,553
META‐REGRESSION ANALYSIS: A QUANTITATIVE METHOD OF LITERATURE SURVEYS
Stanley, T. D., & Jarrell, S. B. (2005) · Journal of Economic Surveys · doi:10.1111/j.0950-0804.2005.00249.x · Cited by 805
Self-citationThe Power of Bias in Economics Research
Ioannidis, J. P. A., Stanley, T. D., & Doucouliagos, H. (2017) · The Economic Journal · doi:10.1111/ecoj.12461 · Cited by 634
Self-citationEDUCATION AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP SELECTION AND PERFORMANCE: A REVIEW OF THE EMPIRICAL LITERATURE
Van Der Sluis, J., Van Praag, M., & Vijverberg, W. (2008) · Journal of Economic Surveys · doi:10.1111/j.1467-6419.2008.00550.x · Cited by 616
Stanley, T. D. (2008) · Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics · doi:10.1111/j.1468-0084.2007.00487.x · Cited by 605
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Stanley, T. D.
- Venue
- Journal of Economic Surveys
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2005-06-22
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 309-345
- ISSN
- 0950-0804 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1864180066
- Cited by
- 742
- References
- 9
- FWCI
- 21.01
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Beyond Publication Bias. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.0950-0804.2005.00250.x
- The paper
- Stanley, T. D. (2005). Beyond Publication Bias. Journal of Economic Surveys. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0950-0804.2005.00250.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
