The DOI matches its Crossref record; 51 of the 51 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Publication Bias in the Organizational Sciences
Abstract
Publication bias poses multiple threats to the accuracy of meta-analytically derived effect sizes and related statistics. Unfortunately, a review of the literature indicates that unlike meta-analytic reviews in medicine, research in the organizational sciences tends to pay little attention to this issue. In this article, the authors introduce advances in meta-analytic techniques from the medical and related sciences for a comprehensive assessment and evaluation of publication bias. The authors illustrate their use on a data set on employment interview validities. Using multiple methods, including contour-enhanced funnel plots, trim and fill, Egger’s test of the intercept, Begg and Mazumdar’s rank correlation, meta-regression, cumulative meta-analysis, and selection models, the authors find limited evidence of publication bias in the studied data.
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
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Cochrane Book Series
(2008) · doi:10.1002/9780470712184 · Cited by 25,048
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
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009) · doi:10.1002/9780470743386 · Cited by 14,225
Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000) · Biometrics · doi:10.1111/j.0006-341x.2000.00455.x · Cited by 14,099
Missing data: our view of the state of the art
Schafer, J. L., & Graham, J. W. (2002) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.7.2.147 · Cited by 11,638
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2021) · doi:10.1002/9781119558378 · Cited by 9,799
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
Sterne, J. A. C., Sutton, A. J., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Terrin, N., Jones, D. R., Lau, J., Carpenter, J., Rucker, G., Harbord, R. M., Schmid, C. H., et al. (2011) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.d4002 · Cited by 7,709
Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Triangulation in Action.
Jick, T. D. (1979) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2392366 · Cited by 7,103 · cited 1×
“Our recommendation for the use of multiple publication bias methods is aligned with the concept of triangulation, which refers to the use of ‘‘multiple reference points to locate an object’s exact position’’ (Jick, 1979, p. 602; see also, e.g., Sackett & Larson, 1990; Scandura & Williams, 2000).”
MethodMethods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (2015) · doi:10.4135/9781483398105 · Cited by 5,542
The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis
(2019) · doi:10.7758/9781610448864 · Cited by 4,553
Hunter, J., & Schmidt, F. (2004) · doi:10.4135/9781412985031 · Cited by 3,023
A Nonparametric “Trim and Fill” Method of Accounting for Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis
Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.2000.10473905 · Cited by 2,955
Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy
Turner, E. H., Matthews, A. M., Linardatos, E., Tell, R. A., & Rosenthal, R. (2008) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmsa065779 · Cited by 2,435
Publication Bias in Meta‐Analysis: Prevention, Assessment and Adjustments
(2005) · doi:10.1002/0470870168 · Cited by 2,368
A modified test for small‐study effects in meta‐analyses of controlled trials with binary endpoints
Harbord, R. M., Egger, M., & Sterne, J. A. C. (2006) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.2380 · Cited by 2,267 · cited 2×
“Overall, the modified tests may not necessarily outperform the original ones, but they can under certain conditions (e.g., Harbord et al., 2006; Macaskill et al., 2001), especially when the outcome measure is the natural log of the odds ratio (lnOR) (Moreno, Sutton, Ades, et al., 2009).”
BackgroundMethodA Fail-Safe N for Effect Size in Meta-Analysis
Orwin, R. G. (1983) · Journal of Educational Statistics · doi:10.2307/1164923 · Cited by 2,064 · cited 1×
“Similar caveats apply to modifications (e.g., Orwin, 1983) of Rosenthal’s original failsafe N technique (Becker, 2005; Higgins & Green, 2009).”
MethodPeters, J. L., Sutton, A. J., Jones, D. R., Abrams, K. R., & Rushton, L. (2008) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.11.010 · Cited by 2,053
Chan, A.-W., Hróbjartsson, A., Haahr, M. T., Gøtzsche, P. C., & Altman, D. G. (2004) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.291.20.2457 · Cited by 1,845
Systematic Reviews in Health Care: Meta‐Analysis in Context
(2001) · doi:10.1002/9780470693926 · Cited by 1,693
Cipriani, A., Furukawa, T. A., Salanti, G., Geddes, J. R., Higgins, J. P., Churchill, R., Watanabe, N., Nakagawa, A., Omori, I. M., McGuire, H., et al. (2009) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(09)60046-5 · Cited by 1,654
Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias
Dwan, K., Altman, D. G., Arnaiz, J. A., Bloom, J., Chan, A.-W., Cronin, E., Decullier, E., Easterbrook, P. J., Von Elm, E., Gamble, C., et al. (2008) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0003081 · Cited by 1,546
The use of scoring rubrics: Reliability, validity and educational consequences
Jonsson, A., & Svingby, G. (2007) · Educational Research Review · doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2007.05.002 · Cited by 1,509 · cited 1×
“Furthermore, the development of reliable and valid scoring rubrics for an overall quality score may be possible when objective characteristics are used in the rating procedure (Jonsson & Svingby, 2007).”
MethodThe Existence of Publication Bias and Risk Factors for Its Occurrence
Dickersin, K. (1990) · JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association · doi:10.1001/jama.1990.03440100097014 · Cited by 1,417
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
Clinical Trial Registration: A Statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors
De Angelis, C., Drazen, J. M., Frizelle, F. A., Haug, C., Hoey, J., Horton, R., Kotzin, S., Laine, C., Marusic, A., Overbeke, A. J. P. M., et al. (2004) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejme048225 · Cited by 1,241
Field, A. P., & Gillett, R. (2010) · British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology · doi:10.1348/000711010x502733 · Cited by 1,162
Cumulative Meta-Analysis of Therapeutic Trials for Myocardial Infarction
Lau, J., Antman, E. M., Jimenez-Silva, J., Kupelnick, B., Mosteller, F., & Chalmers, T. C. (1992) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199207233270406 · Cited by 1,140 · cited 2×
“When effect sizes are sorted by publication year (e.g., Lau & Antman, 1992; Lau, Schmid, & Chalmers, 1995), the cumulative meta-analysis can be used to evaluate the presence of a time-lag bias (Ioannidis, 2005; Trikalinos & Ioannidis, 2005); a negative drift from more positive cumulative point…”
MethodDissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases
Song, F., Parekh, Hooper, L., Loke, Y., Ryder, J., Sutton, A., Hing, C., Kwok, C., Pang, C., & Harvey, I. (2010) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta14080 · Cited by 1,039
Consequences of prejudice against the null hypothesis.
Greenwald, A. G. (1975) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0076157 · Cited by 1,022 · cited 3×
“As explained previously, published samples tend to report more significant and positive effect sizes than the literature as a whole (e.g., Greenwald, 1975; Hopewell, McDonald, Clarke, & Egger, 2007; Song et al., 2010).”
BackgroundRegression Methods to Detect Publication and Other Bias in Meta‐Analysis
Sterne, J. A. C., & Egger, M. (2005) · Publication Bias in Meta‐Analysis · doi:10.1002/0470870168.ch6 · Cited by 826
Publication bias: evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects
Stern, J. M., & Simes, R. J. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.640 · Cited by 818
Adjusting for publication bias in the presence of heterogeneity
Terrin, N., Schmid, C. H., Lau, J., & Olkin, I. (2003) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1461 · Cited by 809
Publication bias: the case for an international registry of clinical trials.
Simes, R. J. (1986) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.1986.4.10.1529 · Cited by 747
Chan, A.-W., & Altman, D. G. (2005) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.38356.424606.8f · Cited by 613 · cited 1×
“Evidence for this bias is substantial in the medical sciences (e.g., Chan & Altman, 2005; Chan et al., 2004; Dickersin, 2005; Dwan et al., 2008; Sutton & Pigott, 2005; Vedula, Bero, Scherer, & Dickersin, 2009), and there is no compelling argument indicating that the situation is different in the…”
BackgroundPublication Bias in Meta‐Analysis
Rothstein, H. R., Sutton, A. J., & Borenstein, M. (2005) · Publication Bias in Meta‐Analysis · doi:10.1002/0470870168.ch1 · Cited by 603
Grey literature in meta-analyses of randomized trials of health care interventions
Hopewell, S., McDonald, S., Clarke, M. J., & Egger, M. (2007) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.mr000010.pub3 · Cited by 598
The poor availability of psychological research data for reanalysis.
Wicherts, J. M., Borsboom, D., Kats, J., & Molenaar, D. (2006) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.61.7.726 · Cited by 543
Publication Selection Bias in Minimum‐Wage Research? A Meta‐Regression Analysis
Doucouliagos, H., & Stanley, T. D. (2009) · British Journal of Industrial Relations · doi:10.1111/j.1467-8543.2009.00723.x · Cited by 507
Duval, S. (2005) · Publication Bias in Meta‐Analysis · doi:10.1002/0470870168.ch8 · Cited by 496
Publication Bias in Research Synthesis: Sensitivity Analysis Using A Priori Weight Functions.
Vevea, J. L., & Woods, C. M. (2005) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.10.4.428 · Cited by 461 · cited 14×
“Unfortunately, the estimation of publication bias using selection models has been limited by data set requirements because a large number of samples is necessary to estimate the model with adequate accuracy (e.g., at least 100 samples; Vevea & Woods, 2005).”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialMoreno, S. G., Sutton, A. J., Ades, A., Stanley, T. D., Abrams, K. R., Peters, J. L., & Cooper, N. J. (2009) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-9-2 · Cited by 373
Modeling Publication Selection Effects in Meta-Analysis
Hedges, L. V. (1992) · Statistical Science · doi:10.1214/ss/1177011364 · Cited by 359
Sterne, J. A. C., Becker, B. J., & Egger, M. (2005) · Publication Bias in Meta‐Analysis · doi:10.1002/0470870168.ch5 · Cited by 341
Comparing meta-analytic moderator estimation techniques under realistic conditions.
Steel, P. D., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2002) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.96 · Cited by 309 · cited 2×
“Thus, in addition to statistical problems associated with subgroup analyses (e.g., Steel & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2002), conceptually, they cannot necessarily assess the presence or magnitude of publication bias in meta-analytic reviews and their results.”
BackgroundMeta-analysis: Neither quick nor easy
Berman, N. G., & Parker, R. A. (2002) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-2-10 · Cited by 270
Moreno, S. G., Sutton, A. J., Turner, E. H., Abrams, K. R., Cooper, N. J., Palmer, T. M., & Ades, A. E. (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2981 · Cited by 184
Borenstein, M. (2005) · Publication Bias in Meta‐Analysis · doi:10.1002/0470870168.ch11 · Cited by 178 · cited 26×
“Although relatively sophisticated methods for the assessment of publication bias exist today, prevention of this bias is the best solution (Sutton, 2009).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialWho benefits from medical interventions?
Smith, G. D., & Egger, M. (1994) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.308.6921.72 · Cited by 128
Expression of Concern Reaffirmed
Curfman, G. D., Morrissey, S., & Drazen, J. M. (2006) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejme068054 · Cited by 109
Evangelou, E., Trikalinos, T. A., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005) · The FASEB Journal · doi:10.1096/fj.05-4784lsf · Cited by 92
Cited by
Perceived organizational support: a meta-analytic evaluation of organizational support theory.
Kurtessis, J. N., Eisenberger, R., Ford, M. T., Buffardi, L. C., Stewart, K. A., & Adis, C. S. (2017) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206315575554 · Cited by 2,354
Adams, R. J., Smart, P., & Huff, A. S. (2017) · International Journal of Management Reviews · doi:10.1111/ijmr.12102 · Cited by 995
The relationship between professional burnout and quality and safety in healthcare: a meta-analysis
Salyers, M. P., Bonfils, K. A., Luther, L., Firmin, R. L., White, D. A., Adams, E. L., & Rollins, A. L. (2017) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-016-3886-9 · Cited by 843
A meta-analysis of shared leadership and team effectiveness
Wang, D., Waldman, D. A., & Zhang, Z. (2014) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0034531 · Cited by 731
Abusive supervision: A meta-analysis and empirical review
Mackey, J. D., Frieder, R. E., Brees, J. R., & Martinko, M. J. (2017) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206315573997 · Cited by 706
Metadata
- Authors
- Kepes, S., Banks, G. C., McDaniel, M., & Whetzel, D. L.
- Venue
- Organizational Research Methods
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2012-07-31
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 624-662
- ISSN
- 1094-4281 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-7425
- OpenAlex
- W2098274145
- Cited by
- 398
- References
- 51
- FWCI
- 18.75
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
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.
