Worsening file-drawer problem in the abstracts of natural, medical and social science databases

Scientometrics

Volumn 85, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 193-202

  Pautasso, Marco ^a  

^a IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

History of science; Meta analysis; Publication explosion; Scientific knowledge; Significant differences; STM publishing

Indexed keywords

EID: 77956257727     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-010-0233-5     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Abt, H. A. (1992). Publication practices in various sciences. Scientometrics, 24, 441-447.
2. Begg, C. B., & Berlin, J. A. (1988). Publication bias: A problem in interpreting medical data. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society A, 151, 419-463.
3. Bensman, S. J. (2007). Garfield and the impact factor. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 41, 93-155.
4. Bourne, P. E., & Korngreen, A. (2006). Ten simple rules for reviewers. PLoS Computational Biology, 2, e110.
5. Cicchetti, D. V. (1991). The reliability of peer-review for manuscript and grant submissions: A cross-disciplinary investigation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14, 119-134.
6. Csada, R. D., James, P. C., & Espie, R. H. M. (1996). The "file drawer problem" of non-significant results: Does it apply to biological research? Oikos, 76, 591-593.
7. de Mesnard, L. (2010). On Hochberg et al.'s "The tragedy of the reviewer commons". Scientometrics, in press doi: 10. 1007/s11192-009-0141-8.
8. Garfield, E. (1997). A statistically valid definition of bias is needed to determine whether the Science Citation Index(R) discriminates against third world journals. Current Science, 73, 639-641.
9. Gerber, A. S., & Malhotra, N. (2008). Publication bias in empirical sociological research: Do arbitrary significance levels distort published results? Sociological Methods & Research, 37, 3-30.
10. Gilbody, S. M., Song, F., Eastwood, A. J., & Sutton, A. (2000). The causes, consequences and detection of publication bias in psychiatry. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 102, 241-249.
11. Greenberg, S. A. (2009). How citation distortions create unfounded authority: Analysis of a citation network. British Medical Journal, 339, b2680.
12. Guetzkow, J., Lamont, M., & Mallard, G. (2004). What is originality in the humanities and the social sciences? American Sociological Review, 69, 190-212.
13. Hauser, M., & Fehr, E. (2007). An incentive solution to the peer review problem. PLoS Biology, 5, e107.
14. Hochberg, M. E., Chase, J. M., Gotelli, N. J., Hastings, A., & Naeem, S. (2009). The tragedy of the reviewer commons. Ecology Letters, 12, 2-4.
15. Kennedy, D. (2004). The old file-drawer problem. Science, 305, 451.
16. Khoury, M. J., Bertram, L., Boffetta, P., Butterworth, A. S., Chanock, S. J., Dolan, S. M., et al. (2009). Genome-wide association studies, field synopses, and the development of the knowledge base on genetic variation and human diseases. American Journal of Epidemiology, 170, 269-279.
17. Killeen, P. R. (2005). An alternative to null-hypothesis significance tests. Psychological Science, 16, 345-353.
18. Klein, J. T. (2006). Afterword: The emergent literature on interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research evaluation. Research Evaluation, 15, 75-80.
19. Koletsi, D., Karagianni, A., Pandis, N., Makou, M., Polychronopolou, A., & Eliades, T. (2009). Are studies reporting significant results more likely to be published? American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 136, 632e1.
20. Krzyzanowska, M. K., Pintilie, M., & Tannock, I. F. (2003). Factors associated with failure to publish large randomized trials presented at an oncology meeting. Journal of the American Medical Association, 290, 495-501.
21. Lawrence, P. A. (2003). The politics of publication. Nature, 422, 259-261.
22. Levine, T., Asada, K. J., & Carpenter, C. (2009). Sample sizes and effect sizes are negatively correlated in meta-analyses: Evidence and implications of a publication bias against non-significant findings. Communication Monographs, 76, 286-302.
23. Marsh, H. W., Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., Daniel, H. D., & O'Mara, A. (2009). Gender effects in the peer reviews of grant proposals: A comprehensive meta-analysis comparing traditional and multilevel approaches. Review of Educational Research, 79, 1290-1326.
24. Nakagawa, S., & Cuthill, I. C. (2007). Effect size, confidence interval and statistical significance: A practical guide for biologists. Biological Reviews, 82, 591-605.
25. Nieminen, P., Rucker, G., Miettunen, J., Carpenter, J., & Schumacher, M. (2007). Statistically significant papers in psychiatry were cited more often than others. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60, 939-946.
26. Paris, G., De Leo, G., Menozzi, P., & Gatto, M. (1998). Region-based citation bias in science. Nature, 396, 6708.
27. Pautasso, M., & Pautasso, C. (2010). Peer reviewing interdisciplinary papers. European Review, 18, 227-237.
28. Pautasso, M., & Schäfer, H. (2010). Peer review delay and selectivity in ecology journals. Scientometrics, in press. doi: 10. 1007/s11192-009-0105-z.
29. Primack, R. B., & Marrs, R. (2008). Bias in the review process. Biological Conservation, 141, 2919-2920.
30. Provenzale, J. M., & Stanley, R. J. (2005). A systematic guide to reviewing a manuscript. American Journal of Radiology, 185, 848-854.
31. Reinhart, M. (2009). Peer review of grant applications in biology and medicine. Reliability, fairness, and validity. Scientometrics, 81, 789-809.
32. Rosenthal, R. (1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 638-641.
33. Schwartz, S. J., & Zamboanga, B. L. (2009). The peer-review and editorial system: Ways to fix something that might be broken. Perspectives in Psychological Science, 4, 54-61.
34. Smith, A. J. (1990). The task of the referee. IEEE Computer, 23, 46-51.
35. Song, F. J., Parekh-Bhurke, S., Hooper, L., Loke, Y. K., Ryder, J. J., Sutton, A. J., et al. (2009). Extent of publication bias in different categories of research cohorts: A meta-analysis of empirical studies. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 9, 79.
36. Sterling, T. D. (1959). Publication decisions and their possible effects on inferences drawn from tests of significance-Or vice versa. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 54, 30-34.
37. Taborsky, M. (2009). Biased citation practice and taxonomic parochialism. Ethology, 115, 105-111.
38. Tricco, A. C., Tetzaff, J., Pham, B., Brehaut, J., & Moher, D. (2009). Non-Cochrane vs. Cochrane reviews were twice as likely to have positive conclusion statements: Cross-sectional study. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 62, 380-386.
39. Vecchi, S., Belleudi, V., Amato, L., Davoli, M., & Peducci, C. A. (2009). Does direction of results of abstracts submitted to scientific conferences on drug addiction predict full publication? BMC Medical Research Methodology, 9, 23.