Bitte verwenden Sie diesen Link, um diese Publikation zu zitieren, oder auf sie als Internetquelle zu verweisen: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/279067 
Erscheinungsjahr: 
2023
Schriftenreihe/Nr.: 
IZA Discussion Papers No. 16369
Verlag: 
Institute of Labor Economics (IZA), Bonn
Zusammenfassung: 
We use unique data from journal submissions to identify and unpack publication bias and p-hacking. We find that initial submissions display significant bunching, suggesting the distribution among published statistics cannot be fully attributed to a publication bias in peer review. Desk-rejected manuscripts display greater heaping than those sent for review i.e. marginally significant results are more likely to be desk rejected. Reviewer recommendations, in contrast, are positively associated with statistical significance. Overall, the peer review process has little effect on the distribution of test statistics. Lastly, we track rejected papers and present evidence that the prevalence of publication biases is perhaps not as prominent as feared.
Schlagwörter: 
publication bias
p-hacking
selective reporting
JEL: 
A11
C13
C40
Dokumentart: 
Working Paper

Datei(en):
Datei
Größe
2.11 MB





Publikationen in EconStor sind urheberrechtlich geschützt.