This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

Could It Be Better to Discard 90% of the Data? A Statistical Paradox

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
T.D. Stanley ()
Stephen B. Jarrell ()
Hristos Doucouliagos ()

Additional information is available for the following registered author(s):

Abstract

Conventional practice is to draw inferences from all available data and research results, even though there is ample evidence to suggest that empirical literatures suffer from publication selection bias. When a scientific literature is plagued by such bias, a simple discarding of the vast majority of empirical results can actually improve statistical inference and estimation. Simulations demonstrate that, if the majority of researchers, reviewers, and editors use statistical significance as a criterion for reporting or publishing an estimate, discarding 90% of the published findings greatly reduces publication selection bias and is often more efficient than conventional summary statistics. Improving statistical estimation and inference through removing so much data goes against statistical theory and practice; hence, it is paradoxical. We investigate a very simple method to reduce the effects of publication bias and to improve the efficiency of summary estimates of accumulated empirical research results that averages the most precise ten percent of the reported estimates (i.e., ‘Top10’). In the process, the critical importance of precision (the inverse of an estimate’s standard error) as a measure of a study’s quality is brought to light. Reviewers and journal editors should use precision as one objective measure of a study’s quality.

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.deakin.edu.au/buslaw/aef/workingpapers/papers/2009_13.pdf
File Format: application/pdf
File Function:
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by Deakin University, Faculty of Business and Law, School of Accounting, Economics and Finance in its series Economics Series with number 2009_13.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Length:
Date of creation: 16 Sep 2009
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:dkn:econwp:eco_2009_13

Contact details of provider:
Postal: 221 Burwood Highway, Burwood 3125
Phone: 61 3 9244 3815
Web page: http://www.deakin.edu.au/buslaw/aef/index.php

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Dr Xueli Tang).

Related research
Keywords: Publication Selection; Meta-analysis; Precision; Simulations; Meta-Regression.;

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
  1. Lovell, Michael C, 1983. "Data Mining," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 65(1), pages 1-12, February. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  2. Feige, Edgar L, 1975. "The Consequences of Journal Editorial Policies and a Suggestion for Revision," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 83(6), pages 1291-95, December. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  3. T. D. Stanley, 2001. "Wheat from Chaff: Meta-analysis as Quantitative Literature Review," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 15(3), pages 131-150, Summer. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  4. Eric Krassoi Peach & T. Stanley, 2009. "Efficiency Wages, Productivity and Simultaneity: A Meta-Regression Analysis," Journal of Labor Research, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 262-268, September. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  5. T. D. Stanley, 2008. "Meta-Regression Methods for Detecting and Estimating Empirical Effects in the Presence of Publication Selection," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 70(1), pages 103-127, 02. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  6. J. Copas, 1999. "What works?: selectivity models and meta-analysis," Journal Of The Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 162(1), pages 95-109. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  7. T.D Stanley & Hristos Doucouliagos, 2007. "Identifying and Correcting Publication Selection Bias in the Efficiency-Wage Literature: Heckman Meta-Regression," Economics Series 2007_11, Deakin University, Faculty of Business and Law, School of Accounting, Economics and Finance. [Downloadable!]
  8. Hristos Doucouliagos & T. D. Stanley, 2009. "Publication Selection Bias in Minimum-Wage Research? A Meta-Regression Analysis," British Journal of Industrial Relations, Blackwell Publishers Ltd/London School of Economics, vol. 47(2), pages 406-428, 06. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  9. De Long, J Bradford & Lang, Kevin, 1992. "Are All Economic Hypotheses False?," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 100(6), pages 1257-72, December. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
Full references

Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? Over 1000 institutions contribute their bibliographic data directly to this service.

This page was last updated on 2009-11-12.


This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.