ArticlePloS one2014
Why publishing everything is more effective than selective publishing of statistically significant results.
Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
33 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Hostile Intent Attribution and Aggressive Behavior in Children Revisited: A Meta-Analysis.Child development · 2019Pooled it
- Why are medical and health-related studies not being published? A systematic review of reasons given by investigators.PloS one · 2014Pooled it
- Associations Between Cognitive Function and ACL Injury-Related Biomechanics: A Systematic Review.Sports healthPooled it
- Publication bias is bad for science if not necessarily scientists.Royal Society open science · 2025Article
- Review
- Article
- Positive psychology interventions in the United Arab Emirates: boosting wellbeing - and changing culture?Current psychology (New Brunswick, N.J.) · 2023Article
- Competition for priority harms the reliability of science, but reforms can help.Nature human behaviour · 2021Article
- Negative polarity in quantifiers evokes greater activation in language-related regions compared to negative polarity in adjectives.Experimental brain research · 2021Article
- A Bayesian approach to analysing cortico-cortical associative stimulation induced increases in the excitability of corticospinal projections in humans.Experimental brain research · 2021Article
- Do bats use guano and urine stains to find new roosts? Tests with three group-living bats.Royal Society open science · 2020Article
- Low replicability can support robust and efficient science.Nature communications · 2020Article
- The Role of Animal Cognition in Human-Wildlife Interactions.Frontiers in psychology · 2020Review
- Recommendations for Increasing the Transparency of Analysis of Preexisting Data Sets.Advances in methods and practices in psychological science · 2019Article
- A theory and methodology to quantify knowledge.Royal Society open science · 2019Article
- Making the scientific literature fail-safe.The Journal of clinical investigation · 2018Article
- Data Sharing in Neurosurgery and Neurology Journals.Cureus · 2018Article
- Simple changes of individual studies can improve the reproducibility of the biomedical scientific process as a whole.PloS one · 2018Article
- The changing forms and expectations of peer review.Research integrity and peer review · 2018Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDe 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
findingsUsing 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.
conclusionPublishing everything is more effective than only reporting significant outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.