COLLECTIVE DELUSION IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES: PUBLISHING INCENTIVES FOR EMPIRICAL ABUSE

David Weimer

Review of Policy Research, 1986, vol. 5, issue 4, 705-708

Abstract: The implications o f the editorial bias of academic journals for the selection of articles with apparently statistically significant findings are widely recognized but largely ignored. Few worry about the incentives the publishing bias presents to researchers for empirical abuse that brings into question the basis of social science knowledge. One possible solution, desirable but probably impractical, is to review articles with statistical results and conclusions omitted. Another, more practical, approach is to guarantee journal space for replication of previously published research. Finally, editors should take greater care in warning readers about findings that implicitly make unfounded statistical claims.

Date: 1986
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)

Downloads: (external link)
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-1338.1986.tb00522.x

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:bla:revpol:v:5:y:1986:i:4:p:705-708

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.wiley.com/bw/subs.asp?ref=1541-132x

Access Statistics for this article

Review of Policy Research is currently edited by Christopher Gore

More articles in Review of Policy Research from Policy Studies Organization Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Wiley Content Delivery ().