Why publishing everything is more effective than selective publishing of statistically significant results

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

80 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Background
De Winter and Happee [1] examined whether science based on selective publishing of significant results may be effective in accurate estimation of population effects, and whether this is even more effective than a science in which all results are published (i.e., a science without publication bias). Based on their simulation study they concluded that “selective publishing yields a more accurate meta-analytic estimation of the true effect than publishing everything, (and that) publishing nonreplicable results while placing null results in the file drawer can be beneficial for the scientific collective” (p.4).
Methods and Findings
Using their scenario with a small to medium population effect size, we show that publishing everything is more effective for the scientific collective than selective publishing of significant results. Additionally, we examined a scenario with a null effect, which provides a more dramatic illustration of the superiority of publishing everything over selective publishing.
Conclusion
Publishing everything is more effective than only reporting significant outcomes.
Original languageEnglish
Article numbere84896
JournalPLoS ONE
Volume9
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2014

Fingerprint

Publication Bias

Cite this

@article{7e12873450294999974ba12a15615c16,
title = "Why publishing everything is more effective than selective publishing of statistically significant results",
abstract = "BackgroundDe Winter and Happee [1] examined whether science based on selective publishing of significant results may be effective in accurate estimation of population effects, and whether this is even more effective than a science in which all results are published (i.e., a science without publication bias). Based on their simulation study they concluded that “selective publishing yields a more accurate meta-analytic estimation of the true effect than publishing everything, (and that) publishing nonreplicable results while placing null results in the file drawer can be beneficial for the scientific collective” (p.4).Methods and FindingsUsing their scenario with a small to medium population effect size, we show that publishing everything is more effective for the scientific collective than selective publishing of significant results. Additionally, we examined a scenario with a null effect, which provides a more dramatic illustration of the superiority of publishing everything over selective publishing.ConclusionPublishing everything is more effective than only reporting significant outcomes.",
author = "{van Assen}, M.A.L.M. and {van Aert}, R.C.M. and M.B. Nuijten and J.M. Wicherts",
year = "2014",
doi = "10.1371/journal.pone.0084896",
language = "English",
volume = "9",
journal = "PLoS ONE",
issn = "1932-6203",
publisher = "PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Why publishing everything is more effective than selective publishing of statistically significant results

AU - van Assen, M.A.L.M.

AU - van Aert, R.C.M.

AU - Nuijten, M.B.

AU - Wicherts, J.M.

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - BackgroundDe Winter and Happee [1] examined whether science based on selective publishing of significant results may be effective in accurate estimation of population effects, and whether this is even more effective than a science in which all results are published (i.e., a science without publication bias). Based on their simulation study they concluded that “selective publishing yields a more accurate meta-analytic estimation of the true effect than publishing everything, (and that) publishing nonreplicable results while placing null results in the file drawer can be beneficial for the scientific collective” (p.4).Methods and FindingsUsing their scenario with a small to medium population effect size, we show that publishing everything is more effective for the scientific collective than selective publishing of significant results. Additionally, we examined a scenario with a null effect, which provides a more dramatic illustration of the superiority of publishing everything over selective publishing.ConclusionPublishing everything is more effective than only reporting significant outcomes.

AB - BackgroundDe Winter and Happee [1] examined whether science based on selective publishing of significant results may be effective in accurate estimation of population effects, and whether this is even more effective than a science in which all results are published (i.e., a science without publication bias). Based on their simulation study they concluded that “selective publishing yields a more accurate meta-analytic estimation of the true effect than publishing everything, (and that) publishing nonreplicable results while placing null results in the file drawer can be beneficial for the scientific collective” (p.4).Methods and FindingsUsing their scenario with a small to medium population effect size, we show that publishing everything is more effective for the scientific collective than selective publishing of significant results. Additionally, we examined a scenario with a null effect, which provides a more dramatic illustration of the superiority of publishing everything over selective publishing.ConclusionPublishing everything is more effective than only reporting significant outcomes.

U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0084896

DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0084896

M3 - Article

VL - 9

JO - PLoS ONE

JF - PLoS ONE

SN - 1932-6203

IS - 1

M1 - e84896

ER -