The DOI matches its Crossref record; 21 of the 21 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
JOURNAL QUALITY, EFFECT SIZE, AND PUBLICATION BIAS IN META-ANALYSIS
Abstract
A simple, empirical method of detecting evidence of publication bias in meta-analyses is proposed, based on the relationship between the strength of the results in published studies and the quality of the journals in which they appear. In an illustration of its use, the method is applied to published meta-analyses of terrestrial plant competition, predation in streams, woody plant growth under elevated CO2, and marine nutrient enrichment experiments. Statistically significant associations of effect strength and journal quality were found in two of the four meta-analyses.
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
“By focusing on comparisons of two or more drivers, we have side-stepped biases caused by unequal research attention among them (18) and by underreporting of small effects (25).”
From The direct drivers of recent global anthropogenic biodiversity loss (2022) · cites this paper as [25]
Citations
Cites
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
The meta-analysis of response ratios in experimental ecology
Hedges, L. V., Gurevitch, J., & Curtis, P. S. (1999) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/0012-9658(1999)080[1150:tmaorr]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 4,704 · cited 2×
“Absolute value of log response ratio vs. log of journal impact factor, for studies of (a) the e ects of sh predators on invertebrate prey in streams (Englund et al. 1999), and (b) the e ects of elevated CO2 on woody plant growth (Hedges et al. 1999).”
BackgroundMethodA 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
Publication bias—a problem in interpreting medical data
Begg, C. B., & Berlin, J. A. (1988) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (Statistics in Society) · doi:10.2307/2982993 · Cited by 814
A Nonparametric "Trim and Fill" Method of Accounting for Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis
Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. L. (2000) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.2307/2669529 · Cited by 694
Meta-analysis: Potentials and promise
Egger, M., & Smith, G. D. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7119.1371 · Cited by 646
Goldberg, D. E., Rajaniemi, T. K., Gurevitch, J., & Stewart‐Oaten, A. (1999) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/0012-9658(1999)080[1118:eatqii]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 486
Sterling, T. D., Rosenbaum, W. L., & Weinkam, J. J. (1995) · The American Statistician · doi:10.1080/00031305.1995.10476125 · Cited by 453
RESOLVING ECOLOGICAL QUESTIONS THROUGH META-ANALYSIS: GOALS, METRICS, AND MODELS
Osenberg, C. W., Sarnelle, O., Cooper, S. D., & Holt, R. D. (1999) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/0012-9658(1999)080[1105:reqtma]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 404
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Scared to death? The effects of intimidation and consumption in predator-prey interactions
Preisser, E. L., Bolnick, D. I., & Benard, M. F. (2005) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/04-0719 · Cited by 1,840
The direct drivers of recent global anthropogenic biodiversity loss
Jaureguiberry, P., Titeux, N., Wiemers, M., Bowler, D. E., Coscieme, L., Golden, A. S., Guerra, C. A., Jacob, U., Takahashi, Y., Settele, J., et al. (2022) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.abm9982 · Cited by 1,121
“By focusing on comparisons of two or more drivers, we have side-stepped biases caused by unequal research attention among them ( 18 ) and by underreporting of small effects ( 25 ).”
Do Pressures to Publish Increase Scientists' Bias? An Empirical Support from US States Data
Fanelli, D. (2010) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0010271 · Cited by 805
Meta-evaluation of meta-analysis: ten appraisal questions for biologists
Nakagawa, S., Noble, D. W. A., Senior, A. M., & Lagisz, M. (2017) · BMC Biology · doi:10.1186/s12915-017-0357-7 · Cited by 579
Acoustic indices as proxies for biodiversity: a meta‐analysis
Alcocer, I., Lima, H., Sugai, L. S. M., & Llusia, D. (2022) · Biological Reviews · doi:10.1111/brv.12890 · Cited by 273
“Outlier studies were examined to discriminate possible reasons for their influence, and metaregression analysis ran without the outliers to evaluate the robustness of our results (Murtaugh, 2002).”
Metadata
- Authors
- Murtaugh, P. A.
- Affiliations
- Oregon State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Murtaugh, Paul A.
- Venue
- Ecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2002-04
- Volume
- 83
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1162-1166
- ISSN
- 0012-9658 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2001608420
- Cited by
- 126
- References
- 21
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 23 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 8.50
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Ecology (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
- Keywords
- publication bias, journal quality, effect size, meta-analysis, elevated CO2, nutrient addition experiments
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: JOURNAL QUALITY, EFFECT SIZE, AND PUBLICATION BIAS IN META-ANALYSIS. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1890/0012-9658(2002)083%5B1162:jqesap%5D2.0.co;2
- The paper
- Murtaugh, P. A. (2002). JOURNAL QUALITY, EFFECT SIZE, AND PUBLICATION BIAS IN META-ANALYSIS. Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2002)083%5B1162%3Ajqesap%5D2.0.co%3B2
