Author
Abstract
This essay argues that different justifiable objectives for scientific institutions lead to contradictory recommendations. We need to be explicit about our objectives in order to discuss the tradeoffs between them. Replicability and the validity of conventional statistical inference constitute one such objective, and they indeed require that publication decisions do not depend on findings. This is what motivates much of current reform efforts. Validity of inference is presumably not the only objective, however -- it could easily be achieved by estimates derived from a random number generator. Relevance of findings might be another objective. If our goal is to inform decision makers or to maximize social learning, there is a strong rationale to selectively publish surprising findings. A third objective could be the plausibility of published findings. If there is some uncertainty about the quality of studies and we want to avoid publishing incorrect results, we might want to selectively publish unsurprising findings. How can we resolve the tension between these contradictory recommendations? I will outline one possibility below, proposing a functionally differentiated publication system, with different outlets focusing on different objectives. Measures that are promoted by current reformers, such as pre-analysis plans and registered reports, would have to play a crucial role in such a system. Following these policy proposals, I will take a step back and argue that these debates raise some fundamental questions for statistical theory. In order to coherently discuss these issues, statistical theory needs a model of the work of empirical research that goes beyond the single-agent model of statistical decision theory. We should understand statistics (quantitative empirical research) as a social process of communication and collective learning that involves many different actors with differences in knowledge and expertise, different objectives, and constraints on their attention and time, who engage in strategic behavior.
Suggested Citation
Kasy, Maximilian, 2019.
"Selective publication of findings: Why does it matter, and what should we do about it?,"
MetaArXiv
xwngs_v1, Center for Open Science.
Handle:
RePEc:osf:metaar:xwngs_v1
DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/xwngs_v1
Download full text from publisher
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:osf:metaar:xwngs_v1. 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: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://osf.io/preprints/metaarxiv .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.