Meta-Regression Methods for Detecting and Estimating Empirical Effects in the Presence of Publication Selection

This study investigates the small‐sample performance of meta‐regression methods for detecting and estimating genuine empirical effects in research literatures tainted by publication selection. Publication selection exists when editors, reviewers or researchers have a preference for statistically sig...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inOxford bulletin of economics and statistics Vol. 70; no. 1; pp. 103 - 127
Main Author Stanley, T. D.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Oxford, UK Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01.02.2008
Department of Economics, University of Oxford
SeriesOxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics
Subjects
B40
Bias
C12
C13
Economic research
Estimation bias
Regression analysis
Research programmes
Research trends
Scientific publications
Statistical methods
Studies
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:This study investigates the small‐sample performance of meta‐regression methods for detecting and estimating genuine empirical effects in research literatures tainted by publication selection. Publication selection exists when editors, reviewers or researchers have a preference for statistically significant results. Meta‐regression methods are found to be robust against publication selection. Even if a literature is dominated by large and unknown misspecification biases, precision‐effect testing and joint precision‐effect and meta‐significance testing can provide viable strategies for detecting genuine empirical effects. Publication biases are greatly reduced by combining two biased estimates, the estimated meta‐regression coefficient on precision (1/Se) and the unadjusted‐average effect.
Bibliography:I wish to thank Chris Doucouliagos, Stephen Jarrell, Randall Rosenberger, Alex Sutton, and an anonymous referee for their helpful comments. I also gratefully acknowledge the support of a US Environmental Protection Agency STAR (Science To Achieve Results) grant #RD-832-421-01. Although the research has been funded in part by the US-EPA, it has not been subjected to the Agency's peer and policy review and therefore does not necessarily reflect the views of the Agency. Any remaining error or omission is solely my responsibility.
ArticleID:OBES487
istex:B893B2EB225661F3498EB7FAE09E39A2B6266E9D
ark:/67375/WNG-NFQ731MD-D
I wish to thank Chris Doucouliagos, Stephen Jarrell, Randall Rosenberger, Alex Sutton, and an anonymous referee for their helpful comments. I also gratefully acknowledge the support of a US Environmental Protection Agency STAR (Science To Achieve Results) grant #RD‐832‐421‐01. Although the research has been funded in part by the US‐EPA, it has not been subjected to the Agency's peer and policy review and therefore does not necessarily reflect the views of the Agency. Any remaining error or omission is solely my responsibility.
ObjectType-Article-2
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-1
content type line 23
ISSN:0305-9049
1468-0084
DOI:10.1111/j.1468-0084.2007.00487.x