Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research: who’s listening?
The 2014 Lancet series on increasing value and reducing research waste seems to have led to some initiatives, …
The authors criticize and disprove de Winter and Happee’s conclusions that it may be more effective to publish results selectively on the basis of outcomes*.
Using their scenario with a small to medium population effect size, we show that publishing everything is more effective for the scientific collective than selective publishing of significant results. Additionally, we examined a scenario with a null effect, which provides a more dramatic illustration of the superiority of publishing everything over selective publishing.
Read the full article.
Title: Why Publishing Everything Is More Effective than Selective Publishing of Statistically Significant Results
Authors: van Assen MALM, van Aert RCM, Nuijten MB, Wicherts JM
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0084896 (2014)
* J de Winter & R Happee (2013) Why Selective Publication of Statistically Significant Results Can Be Effective. PLoS ONE 8: e66463.
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!Contact