Sentences with phrase «publication bias in»

Trim and fill: A simple funnel - plot based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta - analysis

Abstract: Using the p - curve method, we tested for publication bias in research showing that sequential presentation of lineup suspects lowers the proportion of mistaken identifications in target - absent lineups.

Publication bias in scientific journals is widespread (Fanelli 2012).

For example, our results corroborate with others by showing that high impact journals typically report large effects based on small sample sizes (Fraley and Vazire 2014), and high impact journals have shown publication bias in climate change research (Michaels 2008, and further discussed in Radetzki 2010).

This result opposes findings by Michaels (2008) and Reckova and Irsova (2015), which both found publication bias in the global climate change literature, albeit with a smaller sample size for their meta - analysis and in other sub-disciplines of climate change science.

The issues and data here are no clearer than in a field like macroeconomics; there probably is more consistent publication bias in climate science than in macroeconomics, though.

Begg's funnel plot indicating no publication bias in the studies included in this meta - analysis.

Publication bias in clinical trials is the most thoroughly researched aspect of research integrity — having been discussed in detail for over 30 years.

In a statement, AI2's Marie Hagman, a senior product manager who oversees Semantic Scholar, said: «I think the fact that there are no women in the Top 10 authors by the highly influential citation analysis done by AI2 is spotlighting the well - reported problem of publication bias in science and in the context of the current global conversation on gender.

Simon Festing says that reducing publication bias in animal research would ensure a sound basis to move from animal studies...

One 2008 study, for instance, analyzed 16 papers investigating publication bias in randomized clinical trials and found clear indications of selective publication.

This is true for a number of reasons, one of which is the well known publication bias in favor of studies that conclude in favor of a new hypothesis.

Although numerous reviews have examined the credibility of climate researchers (Anderegg et al. 2010), the scientific consensus on climate change (Doran and Kendall Zimmerman 2009) and the complexity of media reporting (Corner et al. 2012), few studies have undertaken an empirical review of the publication record to evaluate the existence of publication biases in climate change science.

Not exact matches

As an historian with may publications and awards I have suspected that Limbaugh is biased in a manner that reflects his lack of depth and integrity in his voicing of his views.

In an ideal world, systematic reviews provide access to all the available evidence on specific exposure — disease associations, but publication bias related to authors» conflicts of interest may affect the reliability of the conclusions of such studies.

We examined plots visually to see whether there was any evidence of asymmetry that might suggest different treatment effects in smaller studies, which may indicate publication bias (Harbord 2006).

Where there were 10 or more studies in the meta - analysis, we investigated reporting biases (such as publication bias) using funnel plots.

«In my position, I wouldn't bias the hiring [of a scientist] based on publications because it's not an academic position.

But JNRBM meets two important needs in science reporting: the need to combat the positive spin known as publication bias and the need to make other scientists feel better about themselves.

The Cochrane group has also put a focus on transparency in science: It argued that publication bias had left Tamiflu looking better than it really was.

Or for experiments in a field that is highly politicised [sic] or biased, so that finding the «wrong result» under the status quo could delay publication of your paper for months or even years.»

One of the many emerging initiatives trying to address bias in both research and publication is the option to get a research idea and protocol accepted by a journal before actually conducting the experiments, with the promise that the journal will later publish the results regardless of the outcome.

The reality is this: the science in the 2015 paper is impeccable and has been replicated and confirmed by other research groups publishing in peer - reviewed journals; data used in the paper were not experimental, biased or improperly archived; and the paper was not rushed to publication.

Michael Osterholm of the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, one of the six dissenters, protested in a confidential letter — leaked to the journal Science — that the information presented at the NSABB meeting was biased towards publication.

Psychologists also tackled problems of publication bias head - on, he said, referring to a tendency for studies that are new and flashy to get more space in the journals than replications of previous work; that's the case even though replications are what show that science is strong.

We also don't know what the real publication bias was in human trials, so it's hard to compare what has changed.

Approximately equal numbers of women and men enter and graduate from medical school in the United States and United Kingdom.1 2 In northern and eastern European countries such as Russia, Finland, Hungary, and Serbia, women account for more than 50 % of the active physicians3; in the United Kingdom and United States, they represent 47 % and 33 % respectively.4 5 Even in Japan, the nation in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development with the lowest percentage of female physicians, representation doubled between 1986 and 2012.3 6 However, progress in academic medicine continues to lag, with women accounting for less than 30 % of clinical faculty overall and for less than 20 % of those at the highest grade or in leadership positions.7 - 9 Understanding the extent to which this underrepresentation affects high impact research is critical because of the implicit bias it introduces to the research agenda, influencing future clinical practice.10 11 Given the importance of publication for tenure and promotion, 12 women's publication in high impact journals also provides insights into the degree to which the gender gap can be expected to closin the United States and United Kingdom.1 2 In northern and eastern European countries such as Russia, Finland, Hungary, and Serbia, women account for more than 50 % of the active physicians3; in the United Kingdom and United States, they represent 47 % and 33 % respectively.4 5 Even in Japan, the nation in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development with the lowest percentage of female physicians, representation doubled between 1986 and 2012.3 6 However, progress in academic medicine continues to lag, with women accounting for less than 30 % of clinical faculty overall and for less than 20 % of those at the highest grade or in leadership positions.7 - 9 Understanding the extent to which this underrepresentation affects high impact research is critical because of the implicit bias it introduces to the research agenda, influencing future clinical practice.10 11 Given the importance of publication for tenure and promotion, 12 women's publication in high impact journals also provides insights into the degree to which the gender gap can be expected to closIn northern and eastern European countries such as Russia, Finland, Hungary, and Serbia, women account for more than 50 % of the active physicians3; in the United Kingdom and United States, they represent 47 % and 33 % respectively.4 5 Even in Japan, the nation in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development with the lowest percentage of female physicians, representation doubled between 1986 and 2012.3 6 However, progress in academic medicine continues to lag, with women accounting for less than 30 % of clinical faculty overall and for less than 20 % of those at the highest grade or in leadership positions.7 - 9 Understanding the extent to which this underrepresentation affects high impact research is critical because of the implicit bias it introduces to the research agenda, influencing future clinical practice.10 11 Given the importance of publication for tenure and promotion, 12 women's publication in high impact journals also provides insights into the degree to which the gender gap can be expected to closin the United Kingdom and United States, they represent 47 % and 33 % respectively.4 5 Even in Japan, the nation in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development with the lowest percentage of female physicians, representation doubled between 1986 and 2012.3 6 However, progress in academic medicine continues to lag, with women accounting for less than 30 % of clinical faculty overall and for less than 20 % of those at the highest grade or in leadership positions.7 - 9 Understanding the extent to which this underrepresentation affects high impact research is critical because of the implicit bias it introduces to the research agenda, influencing future clinical practice.10 11 Given the importance of publication for tenure and promotion, 12 women's publication in high impact journals also provides insights into the degree to which the gender gap can be expected to closin Japan, the nation in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development with the lowest percentage of female physicians, representation doubled between 1986 and 2012.3 6 However, progress in academic medicine continues to lag, with women accounting for less than 30 % of clinical faculty overall and for less than 20 % of those at the highest grade or in leadership positions.7 - 9 Understanding the extent to which this underrepresentation affects high impact research is critical because of the implicit bias it introduces to the research agenda, influencing future clinical practice.10 11 Given the importance of publication for tenure and promotion, 12 women's publication in high impact journals also provides insights into the degree to which the gender gap can be expected to closin the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development with the lowest percentage of female physicians, representation doubled between 1986 and 2012.3 6 However, progress in academic medicine continues to lag, with women accounting for less than 30 % of clinical faculty overall and for less than 20 % of those at the highest grade or in leadership positions.7 - 9 Understanding the extent to which this underrepresentation affects high impact research is critical because of the implicit bias it introduces to the research agenda, influencing future clinical practice.10 11 Given the importance of publication for tenure and promotion, 12 women's publication in high impact journals also provides insights into the degree to which the gender gap can be expected to closin academic medicine continues to lag, with women accounting for less than 30 % of clinical faculty overall and for less than 20 % of those at the highest grade or in leadership positions.7 - 9 Understanding the extent to which this underrepresentation affects high impact research is critical because of the implicit bias it introduces to the research agenda, influencing future clinical practice.10 11 Given the importance of publication for tenure and promotion, 12 women's publication in high impact journals also provides insights into the degree to which the gender gap can be expected to closin leadership positions.7 - 9 Understanding the extent to which this underrepresentation affects high impact research is critical because of the implicit bias it introduces to the research agenda, influencing future clinical practice.10 11 Given the importance of publication for tenure and promotion, 12 women's publication in high impact journals also provides insights into the degree to which the gender gap can be expected to closin high impact journals also provides insights into the degree to which the gender gap can be expected to close.

Her recent work explores the impact of publication bias on progress in ecology and the composition of the ecological community with respect to gender and international representation.

This means that studies that show there is no difference in anti-depressant medication and placebo is left out of the body of literature, favouring a bias for positive publications, publications that find anti-depressants work.

I'm talking about Michael Winerip who, to the best of my knowledge, is the single worst education reporter in America, infamous for biased hatchet jobs on NCLB, Bloomberg and Klein's reforms, and anything else associated with genuine reform (if anyone is aware of someone worse at a major publication, please let me know — maybe I'll start a Reporter Hall of Shame...)

Other publications have addressed race and sex bias in educational practice and research.

I also should note that researchers in this study clearly conducted this study with similar a priori conclusions in mind (i.e., that the Common Core should be saved / promoted); hence, future peer review of this piece may be out of the question as the bias evident in the sets of findings would certainly be a «methodological issue,» again, likely preventing a peer - reviewed publication (see, for example, the a priori conclusion that «[this] study highlights an important advantage of having a common set of standards and assessments across multiple states,» in the abstract (p. 3).

Because while there are lot of sites out there geared to writers in general, in my experience as an indie author I found that they're tended to be quite a bit of bias and stigma against the self published authors at some of the those other writer sites which were really mostly populated by people interested in pursuing a traditional publication path.

Publication bias could have a part to play in the disappointing performance of popular equity indicators.

But I have a feeling the art market is going to be biased for a long time, despite the heartening progress that 20th - and 21st - century women artists have made in university galleries, in publications, and in museums.

There are more degrees of freedom in publication bias alone than the 30 - year averaged global temperature over the instrumental record.

«The publication is deemed clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice... there has been such perversion of the scientific message in the form of systematically biased representation that the objective criteria for upholding scientific dishonesty... have been met.»

This phenomenon, known collectively as publication bias, is seen in a variety of scientific disciplines and can erode public trust in the scientific method and the validity of scientific theories.

We tested the hypothesis of bias in climate change publications stemming from the under - reporting of non-significant results (Rosenthal 1979) using fail - safe sample sizes, funnel plots, and diagnostic patterns of variability in effect sizes (Begg and Mazumdar 1994; Palmer 1999, 2000; Rosenberg 2005).

Results of our meta - analysis found no evidence of publication bias, in contrast to prior studies that were based on smaller sample sizes than used here (e.g., Michaels 2008; Reckova and Irsova 2015).

Extreme publication bias (caused by under - reporting of non-significant results) would appear as a hole or data gap in a funnel plot.

Reckova and Irsova (2015) also detected a publication bias after analyzing 16 studies of carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere and changes in global temperature.

They want to find errors in the earlier publications to have better change of getting their own work valued, and this wish is not strongly biased in either direction.

Curry provides a highly biased and skewed overview of climate sensitivity studies, which makes sense for publication in the Wall Street Journal.

I have seen first hand, biases in the process of selecting articles for publication.

I also raised concerns about bias; here we apparently see Tom Karl's thumb on the scale in terms of the methodologies and procedures used in this publication.

I wouldn't doubt that there would be influences and biases in the process by which journal articles are selected for publication — my doubt is when overly broad or categorical statements are made about the vast «asymmetry.»

In this case, we proved that the due diligence had been inadequate by identifying a bias that subsequently warranted publication in NaturIn this case, we proved that the due diligence had been inadequate by identifying a bias that subsequently warranted publication in Naturin Nature.

This is one area, where the scientific publications are often written in a way that appears to give justification for thinking that they are biased.

The author cautioned that due to possible «publication bias», the reported success in 50 % of cases should not be taken «as evidence of an overall biochar likelihood of producing positive impacts».