US studies may overestimate effect sizes in softer research

Last modified: May 10, 2017

In behavioural studies methods are less standardized and therefore the risk of bias might be increased compared to non-behavioural and non-human behaviour studies. Additionally, previous studies showed a larger publication bias among papers from the US, which is believed to be a result of the systems of publication and career evaluation. The authors focussed on meta-analyses in the subject categories Psychiatry and Genetics & Heredity. They divided the primary effect sizes by the summary effects size of it’s meta-analysis. More extreme effects were reported in behavioural studies, and a deviation towards the direction predicted by the experimental hypothesis was more likely for those with a corresponding author from the US.
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1302997110


Title: US studies may overestimate effect sizes in softer research
Authors: Fanelli D, Ioannidis JPA
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1302997110 (2013)

NRIN devotes a great deal of attention to the website’s content and would greatly appreciate your suggestions of documents or links you believe to belong on this website.

This selection is an incomplete convenience sample, and does not reflect NRIN’s vision or opinion. Including an item does not necessarily mean that we agree with the authors nor does it imply we think unmentioned items are of poorer quality.

Please report any suggestions, inaccuracies or nonfunctioning hyperlinks etc. that you discover. Thanks in advance!