Testing and adjusting for publication bias

Trends in Ecology and Evolution

Volumn 16, Issue 10, 2001, Pages 580-586

  Møllerand, Anders Pape ^a   Jennions, Michael D ^b  

^a Laboratoire de Parasitologie Evolutive CNRS UMR 7103 UFR 927   (France)

^b AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

PUBLISHING;

CLINICAL TRIAL; DATA BASE; HUMAN; MEDICINE; META ANALYSIS; POLICY; PUBLISHING; RESPONSIBILITY; REVIEW; SAMPLE; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE; SOCIOLOGY; TECHNIQUE;

EID: 0035479442     PISSN: 01695347     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0169-5347(01)02235-2     Document Type: Review

References (54)

1. Effect of positive findings on submission and acceptance rates: A note on meta-analysis bias
2. Publication bias: The problem that won't go away
3. What can and should be done to reduce publication bias? The perspective of an editor
4. Publication and related biases
5. Meta-analysis: Synthesizing research findings in ecology and evolution
6. Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research
7. Testicular size and shape of 47,XYY and 47,XXY men in a double-blind, double-matched population survey
8. Increase in studies of publication bias coincided with increasing use of meta-analysis
9. Heritabilities and paradigm shifts
10. The strength of sexual selection: Meta-analysis of bird studies
11. Fluctuating paradigm
12. Manipulation of host behaviour by parasites: A weakening paradigm?
13. The 'file drawer problem' of non-significant results: Does it apply to biological research?
14. Quasireplication and the contract of error: Lessons from sex ratios, heritabilities and fluctuating asymmetry
15. A novel paradigm
16. Manuscript characteristics which influence acceptance for management and social science journals
17. Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system
18. Reviewer bias - A blinded experimental study
19. Effect of institutional prestige on reviewers' recommendations and editorial decisions
20. US and non-US submissions: An analysis of reviewer bias
21. Multiple blinded reviews of the same two manuscripts: Effects of referee characteristics and publication language
22. The effects of blinding on acceptance of research papers by peer review
23. A citation analysis of the impact of blinded peer review
24. The effect of blinding on the quality of peer-review. A randomised trial
25. Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: A randomized controlled trial
26. Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: A randomized trial
27. Open peer review: A randomised control trial
28. Publication bias and clinical trials
29. The biological significance of fluctuating asymmetry and sexual selection: A reply to Palmer
30. Sexually selected traits and adult survival: A meta-analysis
31. Is there a 'file drawer problem' in biological research?
32. Publication bias: Evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects
33. Selecting the language of the publications included in a meta-analysis: Is there a tower of babel bias?
34. Darwin a better name than Wallace?
35. Author judgements about works they cite: Three studies from psychology journals
36. Cholesterol lowering trials in coronary heart disease: Frequency of citation and outcome
37. Reviewing the reviews. The example of chronic fatigue syndrome
38. Bias against negative studies in newspaper reports of medical research
39. Language bias in randomised controlled trials published in English and German
40. The 'file drawer problem' and tolerance for null results
41. Models for estimating the number of unpublished studies
42. Statistical issues in ecological meta-analyses
43. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test
44. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias
45. Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis
46. Publication bias
47. The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its occurrence
48. Will publication bias vanish in the age of online journals?
49. The role of electronic journals in reducing publication bias
50. Toward an ethic in dissemination of new knowledge in primary care research
51. Under-reporting research is scientific misconduct