Armstrong and Hubbard (1991), in a survey of editors of 20 psychology journals, found a bias against the publication of papers with controversial findings. The 16 editors who responded said that they received few papers with controversial findings during the last two years. When they did receive such papers, the reviewers rejected them. Some of these editors expressed dismay over this situation and said that their referees usually rejected such papers. The study encountered only one instance where the reviewers agreed that a paper with controversial findings should be published. The editor who handled this case was blunt: he picked referees who would agree to its publication
BACKGROUND: Selective publication of studies, which is commonly called publication bias, is widely r...
Studies with positive results are greatly more represented in literature than studies with negative ...
Contains fulltext : 136751.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Pub...
Research with the potential to produce controversial findings is important to progress in the scienc...
A review of editorial policies of leading journals and of research relevant to scientific journals r...
As Cicchetti indicates, agreement among reviewers is not high. This conclusion is empirically suppor...
Publication bias is prevalent within the scientific literature. Whilst there are multiple ideas on h...
Publication bias is generally ascribed to authors and sponsors failing to submit studies with negati...
It is well-known that selective outcome reporting and publication distort the information that is ma...
A publishing initiative launched earlier this year by the journal Cortex re-establishes the crucial ...
Funding: The primary researcher (HAC) is supported by the Economic and Social Research Council (http...
Research with the potential to produce controversial findings is important to progress in the scienc...
Publication bias is generally ascribed to authors and sponsors failing to submit studies with negati...
In an earlier work, we found that 66% of manuscripts that suffered editorial rejections were finally...
Publication bias is defined as "the tendency on the parts of investigators, reviewers, and editors t...
BACKGROUND: Selective publication of studies, which is commonly called publication bias, is widely r...
Studies with positive results are greatly more represented in literature than studies with negative ...
Contains fulltext : 136751.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Pub...
Research with the potential to produce controversial findings is important to progress in the scienc...
A review of editorial policies of leading journals and of research relevant to scientific journals r...
As Cicchetti indicates, agreement among reviewers is not high. This conclusion is empirically suppor...
Publication bias is prevalent within the scientific literature. Whilst there are multiple ideas on h...
Publication bias is generally ascribed to authors and sponsors failing to submit studies with negati...
It is well-known that selective outcome reporting and publication distort the information that is ma...
A publishing initiative launched earlier this year by the journal Cortex re-establishes the crucial ...
Funding: The primary researcher (HAC) is supported by the Economic and Social Research Council (http...
Research with the potential to produce controversial findings is important to progress in the scienc...
Publication bias is generally ascribed to authors and sponsors failing to submit studies with negati...
In an earlier work, we found that 66% of manuscripts that suffered editorial rejections were finally...
Publication bias is defined as "the tendency on the parts of investigators, reviewers, and editors t...
BACKGROUND: Selective publication of studies, which is commonly called publication bias, is widely r...
Studies with positive results are greatly more represented in literature than studies with negative ...
Contains fulltext : 136751.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Pub...