For both _Panel A_ and _Panel B_ , the intercepts (FAT) in columns [1] and [2] are positive<sup>15</sup> and highly significant, pointing to the existence of Type II publication bias. This suggests that researchers have incentives to promote results with higher statistical significance, in line with most MRA findings (Doucouliagos and Stanley, 2013).

Table 2: Publication Selection Bias and Genuine Effect Tests [Baseline Results]

||[1]|[2]|[3]|[4]|[5]|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||**All local**<br>Absolute t-student|**shocks**<br>Adjusted t-student|**Main**<br>Agr. shock (+)|**channels of tr**<br>Agr. shock (-)|**ansmissison**<br>Hydr./Min. shock (+)|
|**Panel A: whole sample**<br>||||||
|**[i] FAT-PET**||||||
|**_Mean beyond bias (PET)_**||||||
|Precision (1/SE)|**-0.000 ***<br>|0.000<br>|**-0.003 *****<br>|-0.001<br>|0.000<br>|
||**(0.000)**|(0.000)|**(0.001)**|(0.001)|(0.001)|
|**_Publication bias (FAT)_**||||||
|Constant|**2.383 *****|**1.381 *****|-0.312|**1.641 *****|0.566|
||**(0.119)**|**(0.184)**|(0.397)|**(0.296)**|(0.460)|
|**[ii] WAAP**||||||
|**_Mean beyond bias_**||||||
|Constant|-|-|-|-|-|
||-|-|-|-|-|
|#studies|64|64|25|34|14|
|Observations|2 464|2 464|808|951|543|
|%Observations|100%|100%|33%|39%|22%|
|**Panel B: baseline coefcient**|**s only**|||||
|**[i] FAT-PET**||||||
|**_Mean beyond bias (PET)_**||||||
|Precision (1/SE)|0.000|0.001|**-0.005 *****|0.000|0.001|
||(0.000)|(0.000)|**(0.001)**|(0.001)|(0.001)|
|**_Publication bias (FAT)_**||||||
|Constant|**2.502 *****|**1.745 *****|-0.084|**2.165 *****|0.708|
||**(0.129)**|**(0.223)**|(0.493)|**(0.324)**|(0.601)|
|**[ii] WAAP**||||||
|**_Mean beyond bias_**||||||
|Constant|-|-|0.000|**0.002 *****|0.001|
||-|-|(0.001)|**(0.000)**|(0.000)|
|#studies|61|61|23|32|13|
|Observations|1 391|1 391|448|481|325|
|%Observations|100%|100%|32%|35%|23%|

Notes: FAT-PET models are estimated with a multilevel mixed-effects model and the weighted average of the adequately powered (WAAP) is derived from Ioannidis et al. (2017) and Stanley et al. (2017). Panel A refers to the whole sample of 2,464 observations and 64 studies and Panel B refers to the sample of baseline coefficients, including 1,411 observations and 63 studies. The dependent variable is the _t_ -statistic of the estimate of interest on conflicts as dependent variable. Standard errors, derived from observed information matrix, are reported in parentheses. Columns [1] and [2] report the results for all local shocks, using respectively the absolute value of the _t_ -statistic of the estimate of interest and the adjusted _t_ -statistic of the estimate of interest as dependent variables. Columns [3] to [5] focus on the main channels of transmission for conflict, namely positive agricultural shocks (col [3]), negative agricultural shocks (col [4]) and positive hydrocarbon/mineral shocks (for commodity exporters, col [5]). Results on pure (positive and negative) climatic shocks (respectively 39 and 85 observations over the whole sample of 2,464 observations) and other potential shocks (50 observations over the whole sample of 2,464 observations) are presented in Table A2 from the Appendices section. A detailed description of all variables is available in Table A3. _∗p <_ 0 _._ 10 _, ∗∗ p <_ 0 _._ 05 _, ∗∗∗p <_ 0 _._ 01. _Source: MRA database._

> 15The sign of the intercept is only meaningful for the absolute measure of the _t_ -Student, its absolute value being necessarily positive.

17