Mark B. answered • 02/06/18
Tutor
New to Wyzant
PhD Candidate in Psychology: Experienced Math, Statistics, Tutor
Hello Madelyn,
I am going to offer you several thoughts along with a few links to allow you to see my points a bit clearer.
First, publication bias refers to "the widely-documented observation that studies involving positive outcomes are published in the academic literature more frequently than those with negative outcomes."
Second, selective reporting "occurs when researchers are selective about which research they actually submit to journals in the first place." Usually, if the results of a study do not support the researchers hypothesis, they "tend" to be less inclined to report those findings to the journal publishers. However, even should researchers submit their findings which have negative outcomes, if the publisher has a bias, there is no guarantee those findings will be published.
The most pervasive area of publication bias occurs within the realm of the pharmaceutical industry. If you take a moment to reflect on this, while asking yourself the reason, you quickly understand why this occurs. The manufacturer only makes money on those pharmaceuticals which are efficacious, but in the process of engaging in this practice, those guilty of doing so neglect to understand that all research advances science. In addition, it is a clear violation of ethics to not report all findings. Why? Often, future studies emerge from previous studies, and I would argue most if not all studies emerge from previously conducted studies.
That is, just because a study neglects to support the researcher's hypothesis does not mean it unfruitful for others in the scientific community to consume.
There are reasons for this:
Perhaps the hypothesis was not supported due to to the following:
Perhaps the research question was not clearly stated.
Perhaps key terms were not operationalized or well-defined.
Perhaps the criterion and criterion measure of the independent variable were lacking reliability or validity.
Perhaps the apparatus utilized in the study was lacking.
Perhaps the research design itself was flawed neglecting to test the hypothesis or address the research question.
Were the controls appropriate?
Was randomization achieved. If not, why?
Were the methods and procedures clearly described in detail allowing future scientists to replicate the study?
You see Madelyn, the list goes on and on. And my entire point for presenting this list to you is for the sole purpose of demonstrating why all outcomes should be reported equally. Neglecting to do so hinders science from advancing while allowing others in the discipline to determine if one of the above areas was lacking.
Think of the matter in another way: Even if the results provide a positive outcome, one that supports the researchers hypothesis, once published, others in the same discipline are in a position to improve on the work of their predecessors.
They can:
Correct any errors (if present in the study).
Modify the procedures.
Close any loopholes which might explain the positive outcome while presenting rival hypotheses.
In summation, neglecting to publish findings - with positive or negative outcomes - effects all, not only those involved with the research, but those who may or may not benefit from the results. Along with this, are the resultant ethical implications which surface due to the bias.
Here are some links which you may find interesting while providing further explanation to you.
http://www.bmj.com/content/357/bmj.j1726/rr-0
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3341407/
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0066463
I hope I have provided you with the assistance you sought and wish you a great ending to your week.
I am going to offer you several thoughts along with a few links to allow you to see my points a bit clearer.
First, publication bias refers to "the widely-documented observation that studies involving positive outcomes are published in the academic literature more frequently than those with negative outcomes."
Second, selective reporting "occurs when researchers are selective about which research they actually submit to journals in the first place." Usually, if the results of a study do not support the researchers hypothesis, they "tend" to be less inclined to report those findings to the journal publishers. However, even should researchers submit their findings which have negative outcomes, if the publisher has a bias, there is no guarantee those findings will be published.
The most pervasive area of publication bias occurs within the realm of the pharmaceutical industry. If you take a moment to reflect on this, while asking yourself the reason, you quickly understand why this occurs. The manufacturer only makes money on those pharmaceuticals which are efficacious, but in the process of engaging in this practice, those guilty of doing so neglect to understand that all research advances science. In addition, it is a clear violation of ethics to not report all findings. Why? Often, future studies emerge from previous studies, and I would argue most if not all studies emerge from previously conducted studies.
That is, just because a study neglects to support the researcher's hypothesis does not mean it unfruitful for others in the scientific community to consume.
There are reasons for this:
Perhaps the hypothesis was not supported due to to the following:
Perhaps the research question was not clearly stated.
Perhaps key terms were not operationalized or well-defined.
Perhaps the criterion and criterion measure of the independent variable were lacking reliability or validity.
Perhaps the apparatus utilized in the study was lacking.
Perhaps the research design itself was flawed neglecting to test the hypothesis or address the research question.
Were the controls appropriate?
Was randomization achieved. If not, why?
Were the methods and procedures clearly described in detail allowing future scientists to replicate the study?
You see Madelyn, the list goes on and on. And my entire point for presenting this list to you is for the sole purpose of demonstrating why all outcomes should be reported equally. Neglecting to do so hinders science from advancing while allowing others in the discipline to determine if one of the above areas was lacking.
Think of the matter in another way: Even if the results provide a positive outcome, one that supports the researchers hypothesis, once published, others in the same discipline are in a position to improve on the work of their predecessors.
They can:
Correct any errors (if present in the study).
Modify the procedures.
Close any loopholes which might explain the positive outcome while presenting rival hypotheses.
In summation, neglecting to publish findings - with positive or negative outcomes - effects all, not only those involved with the research, but those who may or may not benefit from the results. Along with this, are the resultant ethical implications which surface due to the bias.
Here are some links which you may find interesting while providing further explanation to you.
http://www.bmj.com/content/357/bmj.j1726/rr-0
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3341407/
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0066463
I hope I have provided you with the assistance you sought and wish you a great ending to your week.
