Cargando…

Why Publishing Everything Is More Effective than Selective Publishing of Statistically Significant Results

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 publica...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: van Assen, Marcel A. L. M., van Aert, Robbie C. M., Nuijten, Michèle B., Wicherts, Jelte M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3894961/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24465448
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0084896
_version_ 1782299912173518848
author van Assen, Marcel A. L. M.
van Aert, Robbie C. M.
Nuijten, Michèle B.
Wicherts, Jelte M.
author_facet van Assen, Marcel A. L. M.
van Aert, Robbie C. M.
Nuijten, Michèle B.
Wicherts, Jelte M.
author_sort van Assen, Marcel A. L. M.
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3894961
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-38949612014-01-24 Why Publishing Everything Is More Effective than Selective Publishing of Statistically Significant Results van Assen, Marcel A. L. M. van Aert, Robbie C. M. Nuijten, Michèle B. Wicherts, Jelte M. PLoS One Research Article 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. Public Library of Science 2014-01-17 /pmc/articles/PMC3894961/ /pubmed/24465448 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0084896 Text en © 2014 van Assen et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
van Assen, Marcel A. L. M.
van Aert, Robbie C. M.
Nuijten, Michèle B.
Wicherts, Jelte M.
Why Publishing Everything Is More Effective than Selective Publishing of Statistically Significant Results
title Why Publishing Everything Is More Effective than Selective Publishing of Statistically Significant Results
title_full Why Publishing Everything Is More Effective than Selective Publishing of Statistically Significant Results
title_fullStr Why Publishing Everything Is More Effective than Selective Publishing of Statistically Significant Results
title_full_unstemmed Why Publishing Everything Is More Effective than Selective Publishing of Statistically Significant Results
title_short Why Publishing Everything Is More Effective than Selective Publishing of Statistically Significant Results
title_sort why publishing everything is more effective than selective publishing of statistically significant results
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3894961/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24465448
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0084896
work_keys_str_mv AT vanassenmarcelalm whypublishingeverythingismoreeffectivethanselectivepublishingofstatisticallysignificantresults
AT vanaertrobbiecm whypublishingeverythingismoreeffectivethanselectivepublishingofstatisticallysignificantresults
AT nuijtenmicheleb whypublishingeverythingismoreeffectivethanselectivepublishingofstatisticallysignificantresults
AT wichertsjeltem whypublishingeverythingismoreeffectivethanselectivepublishingofstatisticallysignificantresults