Format

Send to

Choose Destination
PLoS One. 2014 Jan 17;9(1):e84896. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0084896. eCollection 2014.

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

Author information

1
Department of Methodology and Statistics, Tilburg School of Behavioral Sciences, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

De Winter and Happee 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.

PMID:
24465448
PMCID:
PMC3894961
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0084896
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Public Library of Science Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center