Aller au contenu principal
Accès ouvert déclaré 2026 preprint

The Tip of the Iceberg? Insights into the Prevalence of Publication Bias in Two Probability-Based Academic Panels

0Citations signalées, ce qui n’est pas une note de qualité
0Institutions déclarées
0Pays d’affiliation déclarés

Le résumé fourni par la source

Publication bias is the prioritized and selective reporting of significant results and often stems from the assumption that statistically significant research findings are rated as more important, credible, valuable, and publishable than nonsignificant or null findings. Previous work shows that this assumption makes researchers less likely to publish nonsignificant or null findings, a phenomenon termed file drawer bias. While prior research investigated the file drawer bias primarily at the study level (e.g., what share of studies has been published and which has not), we examine the prevalence of unpublished research on both the study and the hypothesis level (e.g. which hypotheses are published and which remain unpublished). We did so by comparing the submissions of 178 studies conducted in two probability-based German panel infrastructures (SOEP-IS and GESIS Panel) with their subsequent publications. We found substantial evidence for publication bias: after an average of more than six years of data availability, 43.8% of studies remained unpublished, 44.4% published at least one peer-reviewed article, and 11.8% published gray literature exclusively. Less than half of the published studies contained any submitted hypotheses, while the vast majority (>95%) included newly added (ad-hoc) hypotheses, with more than half of these studies publishing exclusively ad-hoc hypotheses. Taken together, over 73% of published hypotheses were supported and over 80% were ad-hoc, whereas more than two-thirds of submitted hypotheses remained unpublished. These findings highlight persistent incentives toward selective reporting and ad-hoc hypothesis formulation. Our results raise concerns about ongoing publication bias in the social, behavioral, and economic sciences.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.

Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert

Aucun DOI disponible pour le contrôle Crossref.

Les sujets associés

Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsSurvey Methodology and Nonresponsescientometrics and bibliometrics research

BNTIC News n’est pas le producteur de ces données. Les publications sont interrogées à la demande dans Crossref, OpenAIRE, DOAJ, Europe PMC, HAL, DataCite, AfricArXiv, ROR et la Banque mondiale, sans clé d’accès. OpenAlex reste optionnel. Aucun service payant n’est nécessaire et aucune donnée externe n’est enregistrée en base. Consulter les sources et leurs limites.