ArticlePloS one2025
Publication bias in the social sciences since 1959: Application of a regression discontinuity framework.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The threat of serious outcome reporting bias in randomized controlled trials on acute ischemic stroke to evidence synthesis: a meta-epidemiological study.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2025Review
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
While publication bias has been widely documented in the social sciences, it is unclear whether the problem aggravated over the last decades due to an increasing pressure to publish. We provide an in-depth analysis of publication bias over time by creating a unique data set, consisting of 12340 test statistics extracted from 571 papers published in 1959-2018 in the Quarterly Journal of Economics. We, further, develop a new methodology to test for discontinuities at the thresholds of significance. Our findings reveal, that, first, in contrast to our expectations, publication bias was already present many decades ago, but that, second, bias patterns notably changed over time. As such, we observe a transition from bias at the 10 percent to bias at the 5 percent significance level. We conclude that these changes are influenced by increasing computational possibilities as well as changes in the acceptance rates of scientific top journals.
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.