Search

Publication bias is a ubiquitous threat to the validity of meta-analysis and the accumulation of scientific evidence. In order to estimate and counteract the impact of publication bias, multiple methods have been developed; however, recent simulation studies have shown the methods' performance to depend on the true data generating process, and no method consistently outperforms the others across a wide range of conditions. Unfortunately, when different methods lead to contradicting conclusions, researchers can choose those methods that lead to a desired outcome. To avoid the condition-dependent, all-or-none choice between competing methods and conflicting results, we extend robust Bayesian meta-analysis and model-average across two prominent approaches of adjusting for publication bias: (1) selection models of "p"-values and (2) models adjusting for small-study effects. The resulting model ensemble weights the estimates and the evidence for the absence/presence of the effect from the competing approaches with the support they receive from the data. Applications, simulations, and comparisons to preregistered, multi-lab replications demonstrate the benefits of Bayesian model-averaging of complementary publication bias adjustment methods.

Publication selection bias undermines the systematic accumulation of evidence. To assess the extent of this problem, we survey over 68,000 meta-analyses containing over 700,000 effect size estimates from medicine (67,386/597,699), environmental sciences (199/12,707), psychology (605/23,563), and economics (327/91,421). Our results indicate that meta-analyses in economics are the most severely contaminated by publication selection bias, closely followed by meta-analyses in environmental sciences and psychology, whereas meta-analyses in medicine are contaminated the least. After adjusting for publication selection bias, the median probability of the presence of an effect decreased from 99.9% to 29.7% in economics, from 98.9% to 55.7% in psychology, from 99.8% to 70.7% in environmental sciences, and from 38.0% to 29.7% in medicine. The median absolute effect sizes (in terms of standardized mean differences) decreased from d = 0.20 to d = 0.07 in economics, from d = 0.37 to d = 0.26 in psychology, from d = 0.62 to d = 0.43 in environmental sciences, and from d = 0.24 to d = 0.13 in medicine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]