Not exact matches
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.
Despite our sincerest aim of using science as an objective and unbiased tool to record natural history, we are reminded that science is a human construct, often driven by human
needs to tell a compelling story, to reinforce the positive, and to compete for limited resources —
publication trends and communication
bias is a proof of that.
To address the possible
publication bias (ie, the fact that studies with nonsignificant results are less likely to be published), we computed the fail - safe N (Nfs) according to the method Orwin16 proposed, which is more conservative than the traditional Rosenthal Nfs.17, 18 Orwin's Nfs determines the number of additional studies in a meta - analysis yielding null effect sizes that would be
needed to yield a «trivial» OR of 1.05.