IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wpa/wuwpgt/0502034.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Publication Bias Against Null Results

Author

Listed:
  • Raymond Hubbard

    (College of Business & Public Administration, Duke University)

  • JS Armstrong

    (The Wharton School)

Abstract

Studies suggest a bias against the publication of null (p > .05) results. Instead of significance, we advocate reporting effect sizes and confidence intervals, and using replication studies. If statistical tests are used, power tests should accompany them.

Suggested Citation

  • Raymond Hubbard & JS Armstrong, 2005. "Publication Bias Against Null Results," General Economics and Teaching 0502034, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    • Handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwpgt:0502034
    Note: Type of Document - pdf; pages: 2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://econwpa.ub.uni-muenchen.de/econ-wp/get/papers/0502/0502034.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. R. Murray Lindsay, 1994. "Publication System Biases Associated with the Statistical Testing Paradigm," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(1), pages 33-57, June.
    2. Raymond Hubbard & JS Armstrong, 2005. "Replications and Extensions in Marketing – Rarely Published But Quite Contrary," General Economics and Teaching 0502051, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Hubbard, Raymond & Vetter, Daniel E., 1996. "An empirical comparison of published replication research in accounting, economics, finance, management, and marketing," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 153-164, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hubbard, Raymond & Lindsay, R. Murray, 2013. "From significant difference to significant sameness: Proposing a paradigm shift in business research," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(9), pages 1377-1388.
    2. Michael A. Clemens, 2017. "The Meaning Of Failed Replications: A Review And Proposal," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(1), pages 326-342, February.
    3. Rakesh Sambharya & Martina Musteen, 2014. "Institutional environment and entrepreneurship: An empirical study across countries," Journal of International Entrepreneurship, Springer, vol. 12(4), pages 314-330, December.
    4. JS Armstrong, 2005. "Incentives for Developing and Communicating Principles: A Reply," General Economics and Teaching 0502049, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Jac C. Heckelman, 2017. "Tullock on the organization of scientific inquiry," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 1-17, March.
    6. Hensel, Przemysław G., 2019. "Supporting replication research in management journals: Qualitative analysis of editorials published between 1970 and 2015," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 45-57.
    7. Thomas R. Dyckman & Stephen A. Zeff, 2019. "Important Issues in Statistical Testing and Recommended Improvements in Accounting Research," Econometrics, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-11, May.
    8. Rachel Sun & Daniel Shek, 2012. "Positive Youth Development, Life Satisfaction and Problem Behaviour Among Chinese Adolescents in Hong Kong: A Replication," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 105(3), pages 541-559, February.
    9. Daniele Fanelli, 2012. "Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(3), pages 891-904, March.
    10. Francisco J. Conejo & Lawrence F. Cunningham & Clifford E. Young, 2020. "Revisiting the Brand Luxury Index: new empirical evidence and future directions," Journal of Brand Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 27(1), pages 108-122, January.
    11. Pierre Berthon & Leyland Pitt & Michael Ewing & Christopher L. Carr, 2002. "Potential Research Space in MIS: A Framework for Envisioning and Evaluating Research Replication, Extension, and Generation," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 13(4), pages 416-427, December.
    12. Regan Schmidt, 2015. "Discussant Comment on An Examination of the Effect of CEO Social Ties and CEO Reputation on Nonprofessional Investors’ Say-on-Pay Judgments, by Steve Kaplan, Janet Samuels, Jeffrey Cohen," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 126(1), pages 119-123, January.
    13. Ryan, James C. & A Tipu, Syed A., 2022. "Business and management research: Low instances of replication studies and a lack of author independence in replications," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).
    14. Jae H. Kim & Kamran Ahmed & Philip Inyeob Ji, 2018. "Significance Testing in Accounting Research: A Critical Evaluation Based on Evidence," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 54(4), pages 524-546, December.
    15. Evanschitzky, Heiner & Armstrong, J. Scott, 2010. "Replications of forecasting research," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 4-8, January.
    16. JS Armstrong, 2005. "Quality Control Versus Innovation in Research on Marketing," General Economics and Teaching 0502050, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Ian Phau & Garick Kea, 2007. "Attitudes of University Students toward Business Ethics: A Cross-National Investigation of Australia, Singapore and Hong Kong," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 72(1), pages 61-75, April.
    18. Fildes, Robert & Wei, Yingqi & Ismail, Suzilah, 2011. "Evaluating the forecasting performance of econometric models of air passenger traffic flows using multiple error measures," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 902-922, July.
    19. Lindsay, R. Murray, 1995. "Reconsidering the status of tests of significance: An alternative criterion of adequacy," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 35-53, January.
    20. JS Armstrong, 2004. "Should We Redesign Forecasting Competitions?," General Economics and Teaching 0412001, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    publication; bias; null results;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • A - General Economics and Teaching

    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:wpa:wuwpgt:0502034. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: EconWPA (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://econwpa.ub.uni-muenchen.de .

    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.