Dissemination biases in ecology: Effect sizes matter more than quality

Oikos

Volumn 121, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 228-235

  Barto, E Kathryn ^a   Rillig, Matthias C ^a  

^a FREIE UNIVERSITÄT BERLIN   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CORRELATION; ECOLOGICAL THEORY; META-ANALYSIS; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; RESEARCH WORK; THEORETICAL STUDY;

EID: 84855969927     PISSN: 00301299     EISSN: 16000706     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0706.2011.19401.x     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Begg C. B. and Mazumdar M. 1994. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics 50: 1088-1101.
2. Borenstein M. et al. 2009. Introduction to meta-analysis. - Wiley.
3. Budden A. E. et al. 2008. Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors. Trends Ecol. Evol. 23: 4-6.
4. Callaham M. et al. 2002. Journal prestige, publication bias, and other characteristics associated with citation of published studies in peer-reviewed journals. J. Am. Med. Ass. 287: 2847-2850.
5. Christensenszalanski J. J. J. and Beach L. R. 1984. The citations bias - fad and fashion in the judgment and decision literature. Am. Psychol. 39: 75-78.
6. Etter J. F. and Stapleton J. 2009. Citations to trials of nicotine replacement therapy were biased toward positive results and high-impact-factor journals. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 62: 831-837.
7. Field A. P. 2001. Meta-analysis of correlation coefficients: a Monte Carlo comparison of fixed- and random-effects methods. Psychol. Meth. 6: 161-180.
8. Gilbert J. R. et al. 1994. Is there gender bias in JAMA's peer review process? J. Am. Med. Ass. 272: 139-142.
9. Greenberg S. A. 2009. How citation distortions create unfounded authority: analysis of a citation network. Br. Med. J. 339:b2680.
10. Gurevitch J. and Hedges L. V. 1993. Meta-analysis: combining the results of independent experiments. - In: Scheiner S. M. and Gurevitch J. (eds), Design and analysis of ecological experiments. Chapman and Hall, pp. 378-398.
11. Jennions M. D. and Møller A. P. 2002. Relationships fade with time: a meta-analysis of temporal trends in publication in ecology and evolution. Proc. R. Soc. B 269: 43-48.
12. Kjaergard L. L. and Gluud C. 2002. Citation bias of hepato-biliary randomized clinical trials. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 55: 407-410.
13. Koricheva J. 2003. Non-significant results in ecology: a burden or a blessing in disguise? Oikos 102: 397-401.
14. Kostoff R. N. 2007. The difference between highly and poorly cited medical articles in the journal Lancet. Scientometrics 72: 513-520.
15. Lehrer J. 2010. The truth wears off: is there something wrong with the scientific method. - The New Yorker, pp. 52-64.
16. Leimu R. and Koricheva J. 2004. Cumulative meta-analysis: a new tool for detection of temporal trends and publication bias in ecology. Proc. R. Soc. B 271: 1961-1966.
17. Leimu R. and Koricheva J. 2005. What determines the citation frequency of ecological papers. Trends Ecol. Evol. 20: 28-32.
18. Loehle C. 1987. Hypothesis testing in ecology: psychological aspects and the importance of theory maturation. Q. Rev. Biol. 62: 397-409.
19. Lortie C. J. et al. 2007. Publication bias and merit in ecology. Oikos 116: 1247-1253.
20. Mahoney M. J. 1977. Publication prejudices: an experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system. Cognitive Therapy Res. 1: 161-175.
21. Murtaugh P. A. 2002. Journal quality, effect size, and publication bias in meta-analysis. Ecology 83: 1162-1166.
22. Nakagawa S. et al. 2007. Assessing the function of house sparrows' bib size using a flexible meta-analysis method. Behav. Ecol. 18: 831-840.
23. Nieminen P. et al. 2007. Statistically significant papers in psychiatry were cited more often than others. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 60: 939-946.
24. Palmer A. R. 1999. Detecting publication bias in meta-analyses: a case study of fluctuating asymmetry and sexual selection. Am. Nat. 154: 220-233.
25. Schwarzer G. 2007. meta: meta-analysis. R package ver. 0.8-2.
26. Shadish W. R. et al. 1995. Author judgements about works they cite: three studies from psychology journals. Social Stud. Sci. 25: 477-498.
27. Song F. et al. 2000. Publication and related biases. Health Tech. Assess. 4: 1-125.
28. Tregenza T. 1997. Darwin a better name than Wallace? - Nature 385: 480.
29. Tregenza T. 2002. Gender bias in the refereeing process? Trends Ecol. Evol. 17: 349-350.
30. Viechtbauer W. 2006. MiMa: An S-Plus/R function to fit meta-analytic mixed-, random-, and fixed-effects models [Computer software and manual].