IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/revpol/v5y1986i4p705-708.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Collective Delusion In The Social Sciences: Publishing Incentives For Empirical Abuse

Author

Listed:
  • David L. Weimer

Abstract

The implications o f the editorial bias of academic journals for the selection of articles with apparently statistically significant findings are widely recognized but largely ignored. Few worry about the incentives the publishing bias presents to researchers for empirical abuse that brings into question the basis of social science knowledge. One possible solution, desirable but probably impractical, is to review articles with statistical results and conclusions omitted. Another, more practical, approach is to guarantee journal space for replication of previously published research. Finally, editors should take greater care in warning readers about findings that implicitly make unfounded statistical claims.

Suggested Citation

  • David L. Weimer, 1986. "Collective Delusion In The Social Sciences: Publishing Incentives For Empirical Abuse," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 5(4), pages 705-708, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:5:y:1986:i:4:p:705-708
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1541-1338.1986.tb00522.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-1338.1986.tb00522.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1541-1338.1986.tb00522.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Morck, Randall & Yeung, Bernard, 2011. "Economics, History, and Causation," Business History Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 85(1), pages 39-63, April.
    2. David L. Weimer, 2015. "The Thin Reed: Accommodating Weak Evidence for Critical Parameters in Cost‐Benefit Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(6), pages 1101-1113, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:5:y:1986:i:4:p:705-708. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ipsonea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.