Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41704065›Full record

ArticleResearch synthesis methods2026

Authorship network bias in meta-analysis.

Marvin Rieck, Anne-Christine Mupepele, Carsten F Dormann

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Research synthesis methods, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Marvin RieckDepartment of Biometry and Environmental System Analysis, https://ror.org/0245cg223University of Freiburg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-1457-5151
Anne-Christine MupepeleAnimal Ecology, Department of Biology, https://ror.org/01rdrb571University of Marburg, Germany.
Carsten F DormannDepartment of Biometry and Environmental System Analysis, https://ror.org/0245cg223University of Freiburg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9835-1794

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft SFB 1597 "Small Data"
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

1. Meta-analyses are a reliable method for a quantitative research synthesis. They are, however, prone to specific biases that can be introduced in the process. Such a bias could exist if primary literature produces similar results if coming from the same authors. Authorship network bias is the non-independence of effect sizes introduced by the overlap of authors of primary studies. If not accounted for, it can severely impact the quality of meta-analysis and the conclusions drawn from it.2. To account for such non-independence, multilevel models with author clusters as an additional hierarchy level were recently suggested. We propose a new method for the detection of non-independent effect sizes based on authorship networks and for their correction.3. An analysis of simulated data demonstrates the effectiveness of the here-suggested new method. We further applied our new method to nine exemplary meta-analyses.4. Our new method for detection and effective correction can be easily integrated in existing meta-analysis workflows, using the functionality already offered by R's metafor package.5. Our goal is to enhance the reliability of meta-analyses by highlighting potential authorship network bias and offering a method to address this often-overlooked bias.

Indexed as

author dependenceauthorship influenceauthorship network biascollaboration networkmeta-analysisnon-independence

Identifiers

PMID41704065
PMCPMC13311356

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.