Publication bias in meta-analysis: Seeing the wood for the trees

Oikos

Volumn 104, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 194-196

  Tomkins, Joseph L ^a   Kotiaho, Janne S ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ST ANDREWS   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ   (Finland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

META-ANALYSIS; TREE;

EID: 0942289686     PISSN: 00301299     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.0030-1299.2004.12357.x     Document Type: Review

References (21)

1. Alatalo, R. V., Mappes, J. and Elgar, M. A. 1997. Heritabilities and paradigm shifts. - Nature 385: 402-403.
2. Begg, C. B. 1994. Publication bias. - In: Cooper, H. and Hedges, L. V. (eds), The handbook of research synthesis. Sage, pp. 399-410.
3. Csada, R. D., James, P. C. and Espie, R. H. M. 1996. The "file drawer problem" of non-significant results: does it apply to biological research? - Oikos 76: 591-593.
4. Duvall, S. and Tweedie, R. 2000a. A non parametric "trim and fill" method of assessing publication bias in meta-analysis. - J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 95: 89-98.
5. Duvall, S. and Tweedie, R. 2000b. Trim and fill: a simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias. - Biometrics 56: 455-463.
6. Jennions, M. D. and Møller, A. P. 2002a. Publication bias in ecology and evolution: an empirical assesmant using the trim and fill method. - Biol. Rev. 77: 211-222.
7. Jennions, M. D. and Møller, A. P. 2002b. Relationships fade with time: a meta-analysis of temporal trends in publication in ecology and evolution. - Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 269: 43-48.
8. Jennions, M. D., Møller, A. P. and Hunt, J. 2004. Meta-analysis can 'fail': reply to Kotiaho and Tomkins. - Oikos 104: 191-193.
9. Kotiaho, J. S. and Tomkins, J. L. 2002. Meta-analysis can it ever fail? - Oikos 96: 551-553.
10. Light, R. J. and Pillemer, D. B. 1984. Summing up: the science of reviewing research. - Harvard Univ. Press.
11. Møller, A. P. 1999. Asymmetry as a predictor of growth, fecundity and survival. - Ecol. Lett. 2: 149-156.
12. Møller, A. P. and Alatalo, R. V. 1999. Good-genes effects in sexual selection. - Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 266: 85-91.
13. Møller, A. P. and Jennions, M. D. 2001. Testing and adjusting for publication bias. - Trends Ecol. Evol. 16: 580-586.
14. Møller, A. P. and Thornhill, R. 1998. Bilateral symmetry and sexual selection: a meta-analysis. - Am. Nat. 151: 174-192.
15. Palmer, A. R. 1999. Detecting publication bias in meta-analyses: a case study of fluctuating asymmetry and sexual selection. - Am. Nat. 154: 220-233.
16. Palmer, A. R. 2000. Quasireplication and the contract of error: lessons from sex ratios, heritabilities and fluctuating asymmetry. - Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 31: 441-480.
17. Poulin, R. 2000. Manipulation of host behaviour by parasites: a weakening paradigm? - Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 267: 787-792.
18. Rosenthal, R. 1991. Meta-analytic procedures for social research, 2nd edn. - Sage.
19. Shaddish, W. R. and Haddock, C. K. 1994. Combining estimates of effect size. - In: Cooper, H. and Hedges, L. W. (eds), The handbook of research synthesis. Sage, pp. 261-282.
20. Simmons, L. W., Tomkins, J. L., Kotiaho, J. S. and Hunt, J. 1999. Fluctuating paradigm. - Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 266: 593-595.
21. West, S. A. and Sheldon, B. C. 2002. Constraints on the evolution of sex ratio adjustment. - Science 295: 1685-1688.