IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/metaar/49yst.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Identification of and correction for publication bias

Author

Listed:
  • Kasy, Maximilian
  • Andrews, Isaiah

Abstract

Some empirical results are more likely to be published than others. Selective publication leads to biased estimates and distorted inference. We propose two approaches for identifying the conditional probability of publication as a function of a study’s results, the first based on systematic replication studies and the second on meta-studies. For known conditional publication probabilities, we propose bias-corrected estimators and confidence sets. We apply our methods to recent replication studies in experimental economics and psychology, and to a meta-study on the effect of the minimum wage. When replication and meta-study data are available, we find similar results from both.

Suggested Citation

  • Kasy, Maximilian & Andrews, Isaiah, 2018. "Identification of and correction for publication bias," MetaArXiv 49yst, Center for Open Science.
  • Handle: RePEc:osf:metaar:49yst
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/49yst
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/5bfec3c135444800196313d7/
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brodeur, Abel & Cook, Nikolai & Heyes, Anthony, 2018. "Methods Matter: P-Hacking and Causal Inference in Economics," IZA Discussion Papers 11796, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    2. Card, David & Krueger, Alan B, 1995. "Time-Series Minimum-Wage Studies: A Meta-analysis," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(2), pages 238-243, May.
    3. Michael A. Clemens, 2017. "The Meaning Of Failed Replications: A Review And Proposal," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(1), pages 326-342, February.
    4. Croke,Kevin & Hicks,Joan Hamory & Hsu,Eric & Kremer,Michael Robert & Miguel,Edward A., 2016. "Does mass deworming affect child nutrition ? meta-analysis, cost-effectiveness, and statistical power," Policy Research Working Paper Series 7921, The World Bank.
    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, February.
    6. Abel Brodeur & Mathias Lé & Marc Sangnier & Yanos Zylberberg, 2016. "Star Wars: The Empirics Strike Back," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 8(1), pages 1-32, January.
    7. De Long, J Bradford & Lang, Kevin, 1992. "Are All Economic Hypotheses False?," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 100(6), pages 1257-1272, December.
    8. Michael Clemens, 2015. "The Meaning of Failed Replications: A Review and Proposal - Working Paper 399," Working Papers 399, Center for Global Development.
    9. James H. Stock & Jonathan Wright, 2000. "GMM with Weak Identification," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 68(5), pages 1055-1096, September.
    10. Camerer, Colin & Dreber, Anna & Forsell, Eskil & Ho, Teck-Hua & Huber, Jurgen & Johannesson, Magnus & Kirchler, Michael & Almenberg, Johan & Altmejd, Adam & Chan, Taizan & Heikensten, Emma & Holzmeist, 2016. "Evaluating replicability of laboratory experiments in Economics," MPRA Paper 75461, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Daniel Yekutieli, 2012. "Adjusted Bayesian inference for selected parameters," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 74(3), pages 515-541, June.
    12. Tomáš Havránek, 2015. "Measuring Intertemporal Substitution: The Importance Of Method Choices And Selective Reporting," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 13(6), pages 1180-1204, December.
    13. Garret Christensen & Edward Miguel, 2018. "Transparency, Reproducibility, and the Credibility of Economics Research," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 56(3), pages 920-980, September.
    14. Hristos Doucouliagos & T. D. Stanley, 2009. "Publication Selection Bias in Minimum‐Wage Research? A Meta‐Regression Analysis," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 47(2), pages 406-428, June.
    15. Camerer, Colin & Dreber, Anna & Holzmeister, Felix & Ho, Teck Hua & Huber, Juergen & Johannesson, Magnus & Kirchler, Michael & Nave, Gideon & Nosek, Brian A. & Pfeiffer, Thomas, 2018. "Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015," SocArXiv 4hmb6, Center for Open Science.
    16. Stephan B. Bruns, 2017. "Meta-Regression Models and Observational Research," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 79(5), pages 637-653, October.
    17. Abel Brodeur & Mathias Lé & Marc Sangnier & Yanos Zylberberg, 2016. "Star Wars: The Empirics Strike Back," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 8(1), pages 1-32, January.
    18. Hou, Kewei & Xue, Chen & Zhang, Lu, 2017. "Replicating Anomalies," Working Paper Series 2017-10, Ohio State University, Charles A. Dice Center for Research in Financial Economics.
    19. Müller, Ulrich K. & Wang, Yulong, 2019. "Nearly weighted risk minimal unbiased estimation," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 209(1), pages 18-34.
    20. Honore, Bo E. & Powell, James L., 1994. "Pairwise difference estimators of censored and truncated regression models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 64(1-2), pages 241-278.
    21. Andrews, Donald W K, 1993. "Exactly Median-Unbiased Estimation of First Order Autoregressive/Unit Root Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 61(1), pages 139-165, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C13 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Estimation: General
    • C90 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - General
    • I23 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - Higher Education; Research Institutions
    • J23 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demand and Supply of Labor - - - Labor Demand
    • J38 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Wages, Compensation, and Labor Costs - - - Public Policy
    • L82 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Services - - - Entertainment; Media

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:osf:metaar:49yst. 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: (OSF). General contact details of provider: https://osf.io/preprints/metaarxiv .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.