Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Positive-results bias, a type of publication bias, occurs when authors are more likely to submit, or editors are more likely to accept, positive results than negative or inconclusive results. [15] Outcome reporting bias occurs when multiple outcomes are measured and analyzed, but the reporting of these outcomes is dependent on the strength and ...
To minimize bias, pooling of results from similar but separate studies requires an exhaustive search for all relevant studies. That is, a meta-analysis (or pooling of data from multiple studies) must always have emerged from a systematic review (not a selective review of the literature), even though a systematic review does not always have an ...
Authors of another study conclude that "the OA advantage is a quality advantage, rather than a quality bias", that authors make a "self-selection toward using and citing the more citable articles—once OA self-archiving has made them accessible", and that open access "itself will not make an unusable (hence uncitable) paper more used and cited".
This type of literature includes conference abstracts, [41] dissertations, [42] and pre-prints. [43] While the inclusion of gray literature reduces the risk of publication bias, the methodological quality of the work is often (but not always) lower than formally published work.
An asymmetric funnel indicates a relationship between treatment effect estimate and study precision. This suggests the possibility of either publication bias or a systematic difference between studies of higher and lower precision (typically ‘small study effects’). Asymmetry can also arise from use of an inappropriate effect measure.
The inherent bias of the current APC-based OA ... that "Open access to the mathematical literature is an important ... can reduce publication delays, an obstacle ...
Systemic bias: This page outlines real, useful information about systemic bias on Wikipedia. We are aware that we have biases, and we do what we can to combat them. One against many: This page gives advice for dealing with situations where one editor wants to make a change but multiple editors oppose the change.
There are continuing efforts to reduce the misuse of statistics, to eliminate perverse incentives from academia, to improve the peer review process, to systematically collect data about the scholarly publication system, [5] to combat bias in scientific literature, and to increase the overall quality and efficiency of the scientific process.