Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24656991›Full record

ReviewTrends in cognitive sciences2014

Publication and other reporting biases in cognitive sciences: detection, prevalence, and prevention.

John P A Ioannidis, Marcus R Munafò, Paolo Fusar-Poli, Brian A Nosek, Sean P David

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Trends in cognitive sciences, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 154 papers, 35 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
154citing papers in PubMed, 35 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

154 citing papers in PubMed, 35 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Evidence-based umbrella review of cognitive effects of prefrontal tDCS.Social cognitive and affective neuroscience · 2022
    Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

94 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

John P A IoannidisDepartment of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA; Department of Health Research and Policy, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA; Department of Statistics, Stanford University School of Humanities and Sciences, Stanford, CA 94305, USA; Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford, CA 94305, USA. Electronic address: jioannid@stanford.edu.
Marcus R MunafòMRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK; School of Experimental Psychology, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Paolo Fusar-PoliDepartment of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, London, UK.
Brian A NosekCenter for Open Science, and Department of Psychology, University of Virginia, VA, USA.
Sean P DavidDepartment of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.

Funding

Extended Treatment for Smoking CessationR01DA017441 · NIDA · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI DAVID, SEAN P. · 2003 to 2013
$5.2M
Community developing and supporting practices to increase replicability of scientific researchR24AG048124 · NIA · CENTER FOR OPEN SCIENCE · PI NOSEK, BRIAN A · 2014 to 2020
$1.4M
British Heart FoundationMedical Research Council MC_UU_12013/6NIA NIH HHS R24 AG048124NIDA NIH HHS DA017441NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA017441
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent systematic reviews and empirical evaluations of the cognitive sciences literature suggest that publication and other reporting biases are prevalent across diverse domains of cognitive science. In this review, we summarize the various forms of publication and reporting biases and other questionable research practices, and overview the available methods for probing into their existence. We discuss the available empirical evidence for the presence of such biases across the neuroimaging, animal, other preclinical, psychological, clinical trials, and genetics literature in the cognitive sciences. We also highlight emerging solutions (from study design to data analyses and reporting) to prevent bias and improve the fidelity in the field of cognitive science research.

Indexed as

BiasCognitive ScienceMental DisordersPublication BiasHumansPrevalencebiascognitive sciencesneurosciencepublication biasreporting bias

Identifiers

PMID24656991
PMCPMC4078993

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.