Abstract
Both significant positive and negative relationships between the magnitude of research findings (their 'effect size') and their year of publication have been reported in a few areas of biology. These trends have been attributed to Kuhnian paradigm shifts, scientific fads and bias in the choice of study systems. Here we test whether or not these isolated cases reflect a more general trend. We examined the relationship using effect sizes extracted from 44 peer-reviewed meta-analyses covering a wide range of topics in ecological and evolutionary biology. On average, there was a small but significant decline in effect size with year of publication. For the original empirical studies there was also a significant decrease in effect size as sample size increased. However, the effect of year of publication remained even after we controlled for sampling effort. Although these results have several possible explanations, it is suggested that a publication bias against non-significant or weaker findings offers the most parsimonious explanation. As in the medical sciences, non-significant results may take longer to publish and studies with both small sample sizes and non-significant results may be less likely to be published.
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (108.5 KB).
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Begg C. B., Mazumdar M. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics. 1994 Dec;50(4):1088–1101. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ioannidis J. P. Effect of the statistical significance of results on the time to completion and publication of randomized efficacy trials. JAMA. 1998 Jan 28;279(4):281–286. doi: 10.1001/jama.279.4.281. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ishikawa Y., Hyodo-Taguchi Y., Tatsumi K. Medaka fish for mutant screens. Nature. 1997 Mar 20;386(6622):234–234. doi: 10.1038/386234a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Jennions M. D., Møller A. P., Petrie M. Sexually selected traits and adult survival: a meta-analysis. Q Rev Biol. 2001 Mar;76(1):3–36. doi: 10.1086/393743. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- doi: 10.1098/rspb.1999.0677. [DOI] [PMC free article] [Google Scholar]
- Poulin R. Manipulation of host behaviour by parasites: a weakening paradigm? Proc Biol Sci. 2000 Apr 22;267(1445):787–792. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2000.1072. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Song F., Eastwood A. J., Gilbody S., Duley L., Sutton A. J. Publication and related biases. Health Technol Assess. 2000;4(10):1–115. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Stern J. M., Simes R. J. Publication bias: evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects. BMJ. 1997 Sep 13;315(7109):640–645. doi: 10.1136/bmj.315.7109.640. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.