CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 333Advanced Causal Inference TechniquesMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsscientometrics and bibliometrics research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 41 of the 41 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Methods Matter: p-Hacking and Publication Bias in Causal Analysis in Economics

Brodeur, Abel, Cook, Nikolai, Heyes, Anthony·2020·American Economic Review
DOI 10.1257/aer.20190687
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The credibility revolution in economics has promoted causal identification using randomized control trials (RCT), difference-in-differences (DID), instrumental variables (IV) and regression discontinuity design (RDD). Applying multiple approaches to over 21,000 hypothesis tests published in 25 leading economics journals, we find that the extent of p-hacking and publication bias varies greatly by method. IV (and to a lesser extent DID) are particularly problematic. We find no evidence that (i) papers published in the Top 5 journals are different to others; (ii) the journal “revise and resubmit” process mitigates the problem; (iii) things are improving through time. (JEL A14, C12, C52)

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1257/aer.20190687

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 41 references

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Blanco-Perez Cristina, 2019, IZA World of Labor, 2019, 467
  2. Leamer Edward E, 1983, American Economic Review, 73, 31
  3. McCloskey Donald N, 1985, American Economic Review, 75, 201

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–332 of 332

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Brodeur, A., Cook, N., & Heyes, A.
Affiliations
University of Ottawa (CA)
ORCID
Venue
American Economic Review
Publisher
American Economic Association
Published
2020-11-01
Volume
110
Issue
11
Pages
3634-3660
ISSN
0002-8282 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1257/aer.20190687
OpenAlex
W3047016911
Cited by
333
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 44 · 2025: 50 · 2024: 91 · 2023: 49 · 2022: 47 · 2021: 41 · 2020: 7
FWCI
25.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Economic Review (publishedVersion)
  • Open Research Exeter (University of Exeter) (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
Keywords
p-hacking, publication bias, credibility revolution, causal inference, instrumental variables, difference-in-differences, regression discontinuity design, randomized controlled trials, hypothesis testing, economics journals

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