Negative results in European psychology journals

Europe's Journal of Psychology

Volumn 9, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 717-730

  Vasilev, Martin Rachev ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOFIA   (Bulgaria)

Author keywords

European journals; File drawer problem; Negative results; Psychological research europe's; Publication bias

Indexed keywords

EID: 84888792535     PISSN: None     EISSN: 18410413     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5964/ejop.v9i4.590     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Aldhous, P. (2011, May 5). Journal rejects studies contradicting precognition. New Scientist. Retrieved from http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20447-journal-rejects-studies-contradicting-precognition.html
2. American Psychological Association. (2009). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
3. Andrews, M., & Baguley, T. (2013). Prior approval: The growth of Bayesian methods in psychology [Editorial]. The British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 66(1), 1-7. doi:10.1111/bmsp.12004
4. Banks, G. C., Kepes, S., & Banks, K. P. (2012). Publication bias: The antagonist of meta-analytic reviews and effective policymaking. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 34(3), 259-277. doi:10.3102/0162373712446144
5. Bozarth, J. D., & Roberts, R. R. (1972). Signifying significant significance. The American Psychologist, 27(8), 774-775. doi:10.1037/h0038034
6. Bradley, M. T., & Gupta, R. D. (1997). Estimating the effect of the file drawer problem in meta-analysis. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 85, 719-722. doi:10.2466/pms.1997.85.2.719
7. Cohen, J. (1994). The earth is round (p <. 05). The American Psychologist, 49(12), 997-1003. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.49.12.997
8. Coursol, A., & Wagner, E. E. (1986). Effect of positive findings on submission and acceptance rates: A note on meta-analysis bias. Professional Psychology, Research and Practice, 17(2), 136-137. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.17.2.136
9. Cumming, G., Fidler, F., Leonard, M., Kalinowski, P., Christiansen, A., Kleinig, A.,. Wilson, S. (2007). Statistical reform in psychology: Is anything changing? Psychological Science, 18(3), 230-232. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01881.x
10. Dalton, D. R., Aguinis, H., Dalton, C. M., Bosco, F. A., & Pierce, C. A. (2012). Revisiting the file drawer problem in meta-analysis: An assessment of published and nonpublished correlation matrices. Personnel Psychology, 65, 221-249. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2012.01243.x
11. Daya, S. (2006). Funnel plots and publication bias: Work in progress? [Editorial]. Evidence-Based Obstetrics & Gynecology, 8, 71-72. doi:10.1016/j.ebobgyn.2006.10.001
12. Dwan, K., Altman, D. G., Arnaiz, J. A., Bloom, J., Chan, A.-W., Cronin, E.,. Williamson, P. R. (2008). Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. PLoS ONE, 3(8), e3081. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0003081
13. Egger, M., & Smith, G. D. (1998). Meta-analysis bias in location and selection of studies. British Medical Journal, 316, 61-66. doi:10.1136/bmj.316.7124.61
14. Fanelli, D. (2010). Do pressures to publish increase scientists' bias? An empirical support from US states data. PLoS ONE, 5(4), e10271. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0010271
15. Fanelli, D. (2012). Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries. Scientometrics, 90, 891-904. doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0494-7
16. Ferguson, C. J., & Brannick, M. T. (2012). Publication bias in psychological science: Prevalence, methods for identifying and controlling, and implications for the use of meta-analyses. Psychological Methods, 17(1), 120-128. doi:10.1037/a0024445
17. Ferguson, C. J., & Heene, M. (2012). A vast graveyard of undead theories: Publication bias and psychological science's aversion to the null. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 555-561. doi:10.1177/1745691612459059
18. Fidler, F., Thomason, N., Cumming, G., Finch, S., & Leeman, J. (2004). Editors can lead researchers to confidence intervals, but can't make them think: Statistical reform lessons from medicine. Psychological Science, 15(2), 119-126. doi:10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.01502008.x
19. Field, A. P., & Gillett, R. (2010). How to do a meta-analysis. The British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 63, 665-694. doi:10.1348/000711010X502733
20. Flis, I. (2012, January 1). What happens to studies that accept the null hypothesis? JEPS Bulletin. Retrieved from http://jeps.efpsa.org/blog/2012/01/01/what-happens-to-studies-that-accept-the-null-hypothesis/
21. Gigerenzer, G. (2004). Mindless statistics. Journal of Socio-Economics, 33, 587-606. doi:10.1016/j.socec.2004.09.033
22. Glaser, D. (2010). When interpretation goes awry: The impact of interim testing. In D. L. Streiner & S. Sidani (Eds.), When research goes off the rails: Why it happens and what you can do about it (pp. 327-333). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
23. Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine, 2(8), e124. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
24. John, L. K., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2012). Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychological Science, 23(5), 524-532. doi:10.1177/0956797611430953
25. Kepes, S., Banks, G. C., McDaniel, M., & Whetzel, D. L. (2012). Publication bias in the organizational sciences. Organizational Research Methods, 15(4), 624-662. doi:10.1177/1094428112452760
26. Kline, R. B. (2004). Beyond significance testing: Reforming data analysis methods in behavioral research. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
27. Knight, J. (2003). Negative results: Null and void. Nature, 422, 554-555. doi:10.1038/422554a
28. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159-174. doi:10.2307/2529310
29. Lau, J., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Terrin, N., Schmid, C. H., & Olkin, I. (2006). Evidence based medicine: The case of the misleading funnel plot. British Medical Journal, 333, 597-600. doi:10.1136/bmj.333.7568.597
30. Makel, M. C., Plucker, J. A., & Hegarty, B. (2012). Replications in psychology research: How often do they really occur? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 537-542. doi:10.1177/1745691612460688
31. McNemar, Q. (1960). At random: Sense and nonsense. The American Psychologist, 15(5), 295-300. doi:10.1037/h0049193
32. Møller, A. P., & Jennions, M. D. (2001). Testing and adjusting for publication bias. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 16(10), 580-586. doi:10.1016/S0169-5347(01)02235-2
33. Neuroskeptic. (2012). The nine circles of scientific hell. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 643-644. doi:10.1177/1745691612459519
34. Nickerson, R. S. (2000). Null hypothesis significance testing: A review of an old and continuing controversy. Psychological Methods, 5(2), 241-301. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.5.2.241
35. Nippold, M. A. (2012). The power of negative findings [Editorial]. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 43, 251-252. doi:10.1044/0161-1461(2012/ed-03)
36. Nosek, B. A., Spies, J. R., & Motyl, M. (2012). Scientific utopia: II. Restructuring incentives and practices to promote truth over publishability. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 615-631. doi:10.1177/1745691612459058
37. Pashler, H., & Harris, C. R. (2012). Is the replicability crisis overblown? Three arguments examined. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 531-536. doi:10.1177/1745691612463401
38. Pashler, H., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2012). Editors' introduction to the special section on replicability in psychological science: A crisis of confidence? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 528-530. doi:10.1177/1745691612465253
39. Pautasso, M. (2010). Worsening file-drawer problem in the abstracts of natural, medical and social science databases. Scientometrics, 85, 193-202. doi:10.1007/s11192-010-0233-5
40. Rosenthal, R. (1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86(3), 638-641. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638
41. Rothstein, H. R., Sutton, A. J., & Borenstein, M. (2005a). Publication bias in meta-analysis. In H. R. Rothstein, A. J. Sutton, & M. Borenstein (Eds.), Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments (pp. 1-8). West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons.
42. Rothstein, H. R., Sutton, A. J., & Borenstein, M. (2005b). Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments. West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons.
43. Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22(11), 1359-1366. doi:10.1177/0956797611417632
44. Smith, M. B. (1956). Editorial. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 52(1), 1-4. doi:10.1037/h0039152
45. Spellman, B. A. (2012). Introduction to the special section: Data, data, everywhere. especially in my file drawer. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(1), 58-59. doi:10.1177/1745691611432124
46. Spence, J. C., & Blanchard, C. (2001). Publication bias in sport and exercise psychology: The games we play. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 32, 386-399.
47. 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. doi:10.2307/2282137
48. Sterling, T. D., Rosenbaum, W. L., & Weinkam, J. J. (1995). Publication decisions revisited: The effect of the outcome of statistical tests on the decision to publish and vice versa. The American Statistician, 49(1), 108-112.
49. Thornton, A., & Lee, P. (2000). Publication bias in meta-analysis: Its causes and consequences. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 53, 207-216. doi:10.1016/S0895-4356(99)00161-4
50. Torgerson, C. J. (2006). Bias: The Achilles' heel of systematic reviews? British Journal of Educational Studies, 54(1), 89-102. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8527.2006.00332.x
51. Tullock, G. (1959). Publication decisions and tests of significance: A comment. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 54(287), 593. doi:10.2307/2282539