Collective Delusion In The Social Sciences: Publishing Incentives For Empirical Abuse
The implications o f the editorial bias of academic journals for the selection of articles with apparently statistically significant findings are widely recognized but largely ignored. Few worry about the incentives the publishing bias presents to researchers for empirical abuse that brings into question the basis of social science knowledge. One possible solution, desirable but probably impractical, is to review articles with statistical results and conclusions omitted. Another, more practical, approach is to guarantee journal space for replication of previously published research. Finally, editors should take greater care in warning readers about findings that implicitly make unfounded statistical claims. Copyright 1986 by The Policy Studies Organization.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. 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.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 5 (1986)
Issue (Month): 4 (05)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1541-1338|
More information through EDIRC
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.wiley.com/bw/subs.asp?ref=1541-132x|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:5:y:1986:i:4:p:705-708. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing)or (Christopher F. Baum)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.