Sentences with phrase «publication bias with»

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.

Fixed - effect models are reported throughout, because these reflect only the random error within each study and are less affected by small study bias (usually the result of selective publication of small studies with extreme results)(39).

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.

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 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.

On balance, however, this sprawling publication displays an unmistakable, albeit uneven, set of assumptions that align with the values, preferences, and biases of the education profession itself.

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...)

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).

Sure, I may be biased since I run Splickety Magazine, a flash fiction publication dedicated to showcasing the country's best quick fic with kick, but we all know how difficult it can be to finish a novel.

«But its critics claim that InsideClimate News is essentially a mouthpiece run by a public - relations consultancy that gets its funding almost exclusively from groups with an environmental agenda... The little that is known about InsideClimate News raises questions about conflicts of interest as well as about the publication's ability, and proclivity, to report fairly and without bias.»

My impression from outside is that the statistical analyses are weak, the climate models are simplistic and overinfluenced by selection and publication biases, the theoretic underpinning is extraordinarily shakey and the belief engine is overrevved with the popularity of certain «star performers» and the Romantic desire for a Paradise Lost that never existed.

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.

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).

Dr. Duane Thresher, a climate scientist with a PhD from Columbia University and NASA GISS, has pointed to a «publication and funding bias» as a key to understanding how scientific consensus can be manipulated.

To my admittedly biased eye, any «no publication» or similar rule is impossible to square with the principle of precedent, at least as we understand it in Anglo - Canadian common law.

The quality of evidence for network estimates of the primary outcomes will be assessed with the GRADE framework, which characterises the quality of a body of evidence on the basis of the study limitations, imprecision, heterogeneity or inconsistency, indirectness and publication bias.

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.

We found significant differences between published and unpublished studies (r = 0.19 for published studies versus r = 0.13 for unpublished studies; Z = -4.5, p < 0.001; Table 1), which is in accordance with previous findings with regard to publication bias (Van IJzendoorn 1998).

The distribution of effect sizes should be shaped as a funnel if no publication bias is present, since the more numerous studies with small sample sizes are expected to show a larger variation in the magnitude of effect sizes than the less numerous studies with large effect sizes.