IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/polals/v8y1999i02p201-210_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Publication Bias Reconsidered

Author

Listed:
  • Sigelman, Lee

Abstract

In political science and many other disciplines, statistically significant results—rejections of the null hypothesis—are achieved more frequently in published than in unpublished studies. Such “publication bias” is generally seen as the consequence of a widespread prejudice against statistically nonsignificant results. I argue that evidence of such a prejudice is in surprisingly short supply and that publication bias can occur even in the absence of such a prejudice and even if the review process is functioning perfectly. More importantly, publication bias may stem from dutiful application of standards of scientific inquiry rather than from irrational prejudice.

Suggested Citation

  • Sigelman, Lee, 1999. "Publication Bias Reconsidered," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(2), pages 201-210, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:polals:v:8:y:1999:i:02:p:201-210_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S104719870000351X/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Miguel Pereira Lopes & Miguel Pina e Cunha, 2006. "All that glitters is not gold: a critically-constructive analysis of positive organizational behavior," Nova SBE Working Paper Series wp498, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Nova School of Business and Economics.
    2. Alan S. Gerber & Neil Malhotra, 2008. "Publication Bias in Empirical Sociological Research," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 37(1), pages 3-30, August.

    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:cup:polals:v:8:y:1999:i:02:p:201-210_00. 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/pan .

    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.