ArticleBMC psychology2016
Preventing the ends from justifying the means: withholding results to address publication bias in peer-review.
Article in BMC psychology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Preferred Reporting Items for Resistance Exercise Studies (PRIRES): A Checklist Developed Using an Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews.Sports medicine - open · 2023Pooled it
- Cognitive Functioning of Unaffected First-degree Relatives of Individuals With Late-onset Alzheimer's Disease: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-analysis.Neuropsychology review · 2023Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Effects on intrusive memories of playing Tetris with or without simultaneous and deliberate memory recall.Journal of traumatic stress · 2026Article
- From Practice to Policy: Promise and Constraints of Contemplative Ethics Interventions in Science.Mindfulness · 2026Article
- Novelty, Consistency, Transparency: The Trilemma of Psychological Sciences and its Consequences on Open Science Practices.International review of social psychology · 2025Article
- Publication bias in the social sciences since 1959: Application of a regression discontinuity framework.PloS one · 2025Article
- Dissemination and outcome reporting bias in clinical malaria intervention trials: a cross-sectional analysis.Malaria journal · 2024Article
- The Construct Validity of Intellect and Openness as Distinct Aspects of Personality through Differential Associations with Reaction Time.Journal of Intelligence · 2023Article
- The past, present and future of Registered Reports.Nature human behaviour · 2022Review
- Article
- Decisions, decisions.eLife · 2017Article
- A manifesto for reproducible science.Nature human behaviour · 2017Article
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
The evidence that many of the findings in the published literature may be unreliable is compelling. There is an excess of positive results, often from studies with small sample sizes, or other methodological limitations, and the conspicuous absence of null findings from studies of a similar quality. This distorts the evidence base, leading to false conclusions and undermining scientific progress. Central to this problem is a peer-review system where the decisions of authors, reviewers, and editors are more influenced by impressive results than they are by the validity of the study design. To address this, BMC Psychology is launching a pilot to trial a new 'results-free' peer-review process, whereby editors and reviewers are blinded to the study's results, initially assessing manuscripts on the scientific merits of the rationale and methods alone. The aim is to improve the reliability and quality of published research, by focusing editorial decisions on the rigour of the methods, and preventing impressive ends justifying poor means.
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.