Talk:Publication bias

message: I suggest that File drawer problem should be merged with this article. The two terms are so closely related and the two articles are covering such similar ground that it doesn't seem useful to have separate articles. Publication bias is the more general term and this article is more developed so it makes sense to merge File drawer problem into here rather than vice-versa. --Qwfp (talk) 10:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: Ionnidis( Why Most Published Research Findings Are False) states "Claimed Research Findings May Often Be Simply Accurate Measures of the Prevailing Bias".  In some cases, wouldn't the prevailing bias be for a negative result?  If the prevailing bias is that Wonderbread-and-bologna sandwiches don't improve serum glucose in diabetics, won't it be difficult to get a paper published that claims a positive result? --SV Resolution(Talk) 13:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Publication Bias – is it always positive outcome? 

message: the file drawer problem is just one among many different kinds of publication bias. This entry should thus be kept. (and further developed). --BirgerH (talk) 13:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and merged it, there really wasn't enough to stand alone once the OR was removed. Fences and windows (talk) 00:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: there are other kinds of publication bias 

message: Is the "1 in 3" number attributed to Dickersin (1987) correct or sufficient? The abstract of that paper states that the ratio of published-to-discarded rejections of the null (hypothesis of treatment ineffectiveness) is 55% to 14%. Surely it is equally salient news that the proportion of significant to insignificant results is four times higher in published studies than in those which had been consigned to the file drawer (or rejected by peer review)? 83.7.162.252 (talk) 16:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: the scale of the publication bias 

message: I'm an outsider to pharmaceutical research, but I'd have thought that “[With pre-registration,] negative results should no longer be able to disappear” is too strong a claim: that one can still do studies not published or registered with such publications, and thus have any negative results disappear.  Worse, it would seem that publication bias can still persist even within such publications, because one can choose to register a study only once one is reasonably sure that the outcome will be positive under carefully contrived circumstances while presenting the results as being general.
That is not to say that a pre-registration policy will have no effect on publication bias, merely that “[not] able to disappear” seems too strong a claim, that better wording would be something like “in an attempt to reduce publication bias”. Pjrm (talk) 04:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I can't remember where, but I saw something about the pre-registration guidelines not actually being followed. So you still get publication bias, but worse, believe you aren't. Perhaps someone can hunt down more info on this. Could have been Ben Goldacre.
131.107.0.73 (talk) 11:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't work.  At the bottom of http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2016/08/23/ajcn.116.134932.abstract, I see: "This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT02616471."  So this should mean that there's less risk of publication bias, I suppose.  But I think it's common to find studies at clinicaltrials.gov that should have published results, but don't.  I remember noticing one: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02118883 and I haven't looked at many.  Even though it's a legal requirement that studies registered at clinicaltrials.gov must follow (I reviewed the instructions there to publishers, and it's implied at Clinical_trials_registry#Creation_and_development.  There doesn't seem to be an effective enforcement mechanism.  :-(  Anyone have a friend at the DoJ or FDA or something?  {edit: Even when the results have been published, researchers sometimes haven't bothered to update the results - https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02616471 says no results published, but my first link above shows they have been published.} --Elvey(t•c) 02:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effectiveness of pre-registration 

message: I tried to delete the last item in the external links section, because it was a duplicate of the first item in the section, but someone added it back in.   What is the problem?   It is a duplicate.  
"The Truth Wears Off: Is there something wrong with the scientific method? -- Jonah Lehrer"   (the first item) goes to the same link as "interesting article on 'the decline effect' and the role of publication bias in that" (the last item).   
 
I also added in a good link to a very good article and it was deleted.   Why?     
http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/weblog/698.html
The Neutral Model of Inquiry (or, What Is the Scientific Literature, Chopped Liver?)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.38.228.98 (talk) 13:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: User:U3964057 is trying very hard to keep my well-sourced sentence "Publication bias was discovered by statistician Theodore Sterling, in 1959". out of the article. I wonder why. --Arno Matthias (talk) 09:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Arno Matthias. Thanks for coming to the talk page. As should be clear from my edit summary, my concern is not that the content is inappropriate for inclusion in the article, but instead that it is undue weight for the lead. My suggestion would be to kick off the 'evidence of publication bias' section with a sentence along those lines. What do you, or others, think? Cheers Andrew (talk) 01:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed; the lede should summarize what's in the body of the article. Fgnievinski (talk) 03:22, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

text: If you wanted the sentence in, you could have moved it to a more appropriate place. Instead you deleted it. This leaves but one conclusion... I will now put it in a third time and see what happens. --Arno Matthias (talk) 08:11, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Arno Matthias. I'm not sure where your concern about some ulterior agenda is coming from, but thanks for your latest edit. By removing the addition from the lead you have addressed my concern and it sits well with me. Cheers Andrew (talk) 08:55, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the person who discoverd publication bias worth a mention? 

message: The article contains several wrong citations and links. I corrected some of them, which I came across. I am aware of the previous discussions in this lemma, and I made sure not to deviate form the conclusions drawn during these discussions. All I did was correcting obvious "publication bias" in THIS lemma. 
This citation is wrong. Nowhere in STERLING (1959) does the following sentence occur
:"the literature of such a field consists in substantial part of false conclusions resulting from type-I errors"
That might be a mix up between STERLING (1959) and SCARGLE (2000).
Instead, the following one is in the summary of STERLING (1959):
:"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"
I am therefore replacing the sentence. 
The article also says that:
:"The term was first used in 1959 by statistician Theodore Sterling to refer to fields in which "successful" research is more likely to be published"
This also wrong, as STERLING (1959) did NOT use the term "publication bias" – he discussed the concept. Therefore I am modifying this sentence to:
:"The subject was first discussed in 1959 by statistician Theodore Sterling to refer to fields in which "successful" research is more likely to be published"
The reference to SCARGLE (2000) is wrong, I corrected it and made sure the broken link works again.
:Was: Journal of Scientific Exploration. 14 (2): 94–106.
:Is:  Journal of Scientific Exploration. 14 (1): 91–106.
:https://www.scientificexploration.org/docs/14/jse_14_1_scargle.pdf
And I made sure the term "file-drawer" matches the writing of the cited authors ("file-drawer" vs "file drawer").
C.wolke (talk) 12:03, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Several Error Corrections 

message: Publication bias in situ relates to choices on how to analyze the data, and which results to report. 
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15296515/
Shouldn't the article have a section on this issue? Zvi Zig (talk • contribs 18:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Publication Bias In Situ 

message: — Assignment last updated by Kitterbitter160 (talk) 00:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: BIOL4410 senior seminar