Direkt zur Hauptnavigation springen Direkt zum Inhalt springen
info(at)avldigital.remove-this.de
Deutsch English
Letzte Suchanfragen

Ergebnisse für *

Zeige Ergebnisse 1 bis 4 von 4.

  1. Unpacking p-hacking and publication bias
    Autor*in: Brodeur, Abel; Carrell, Scott; Figlio, David N.; Lusher, Lester
    Erschienen: August 2023
    Verlag:  IZA - Institute of Labor Economics, Bonn, Germany

    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... mehr

    Zugang:
    Verlag (kostenfrei)
    Verlag (kostenfrei)
    Resolving-System (kostenfrei)

    Standort:
    ZBW - Leibniz-Informationszentrum Wirtschaft, Standort Kiel
    Signatur:
    DS 4
    Fernleihe:
    keine Fernleihe

     

    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.

     
    Export in Literaturverwaltung   RIS-Format
      BibTeX-Format
    Quelle: Verbundkataloge
    Sprache: Englisch
    Medientyp: Buch (Monographie)
    Format: Online
    Weitere Identifier:
    hdl: 10419/279067
    Schriftenreihe: Discussion paper series / IZA ; no. 16369
    Schlagworte: Wissenschaftliche Publikation; Peer-Review-Verfahren; Statistischer Test; Systematischer Fehler; Bibliometrie; publication bias; p-hacking; selective reporting
    Umfang: 1 Online-Ressource (circa 89 Seiten), Illustrationen
  2. Unpacking P-Hacking and Publication Bias
    Autor*in: Brodeur, Abel; Carrell, Scott E.; Figlio, David N.; Lusher, Lester
    Erschienen: August 2023
    Verlag:  National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, Mass

    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... mehr

    Zugang:
    Verlag (lizenzpflichtig)
    Resolving-System (lizenzpflichtig)

    Standort:
    Sächsische Landesbibliothek - Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Dresden
    Fernleihe:
    keine Fernleihe

    Standort:
    Universitätsbibliothek Freiburg
    Fernleihe:
    keine Fernleihe

    Standort:
    Helmut-Schmidt-Universität, Universität der Bundeswehr Hamburg, Universitätsbibliothek
    Fernleihe:
    keine Fernleihe

    Standort:
    Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Hamburg Carl von Ossietzky
    Fernleihe:
    keine Fernleihe

    Standort:
    Technische Informationsbibliothek (TIB) / Leibniz-Informationszentrum Technik und Naturwissenschaften und Universitätsbibliothek
    Fernleihe:
    keine Fernleihe

    Standort:
    ZBW - Leibniz-Informationszentrum Wirtschaft, Standort Kiel
    Fernleihe:
    keine Fernleihe

     

    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

     
    Export in Literaturverwaltung   RIS-Format
      BibTeX-Format
    Quelle: Verbundkataloge
    Sprache: Englisch
    Medientyp: Buch (Monographie)
    Format: Online
    Schriftenreihe: NBER working paper series ; no. w31548
    Schlagworte: Wissenschaftliche Publikation; Peer-Review-Verfahren; Statistischer Test; Systematischer Fehler; Bibliometrie; General
    Umfang: 1 Online-Ressource, illustrations (black and white)
    Bemerkung(en):

    Hardcopy version available to institutional subscribers
  3. Unpacking p-hacking and publication bias
    Autor*in: Brodeur, Abel; Carrell, Scott; Figlio, David N.; Lusher, Lester
    Erschienen: August 2023
    Verlag:  Institute for Replication, Essen, Germany

    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... mehr

    Zugang:
    Verlag (kostenfrei)
    Resolving-System (kostenfrei)

    Standort:
    ZBW - Leibniz-Informationszentrum Wirtschaft, Standort Kiel
    Signatur:
    DS 831
    Fernleihe:
    keine Fernleihe

     

    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.

     
    Export in Literaturverwaltung   RIS-Format
      BibTeX-Format
    Quelle: Verbundkataloge
    Sprache: Englisch
    Medientyp: Buch (Monographie)
    Format: Online
    Weitere Identifier:
    hdl: 10419/274141
    Schriftenreihe: I4R discussion paper series / Institute for Replication ; no. 52
    Schlagworte: Wissenschaftliche Publikation; Peer-Review-Verfahren; Statistischer Test; Systematischer Fehler; Bibliometrie; Publication bias; p-hacking; selective reporting
    Umfang: 1 Online-Ressource (circa 90 Seiten), Illustrationen
  4. Uncertainty and Individual Discretion in Allocating Research Funds
    Autor*in: Goldstein, Anna P.; Kearney, Michael
    Erschienen: January 2024
    Verlag:  National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, Mass

    There is a long-standing tradition in public research funding agencies of distributing funds via peer review, which aggregates evaluations of proposed research ideas from a group of external experts. Despite complaints that this process is biased... mehr

    Zugang:
    Verlag (lizenzpflichtig)
    Resolving-System (lizenzpflichtig)

    Standort:
    Sächsische Landesbibliothek - Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Dresden
    Fernleihe:
    keine Fernleihe

    Standort:
    Universitätsbibliothek Freiburg
    Fernleihe:
    keine Fernleihe

    Standort:
    Helmut-Schmidt-Universität, Universität der Bundeswehr Hamburg, Universitätsbibliothek
    Fernleihe:
    keine Fernleihe

    Standort:
    Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Hamburg Carl von Ossietzky
    Fernleihe:
    keine Fernleihe

    Standort:
    Technische Informationsbibliothek (TIB) / Leibniz-Informationszentrum Technik und Naturwissenschaften und Universitätsbibliothek
    Fernleihe:
    keine Fernleihe

    Standort:
    ZBW - Leibniz-Informationszentrum Wirtschaft, Standort Kiel
    Fernleihe:
    keine Fernleihe

     

    There is a long-standing tradition in public research funding agencies of distributing funds via peer review, which aggregates evaluations of proposed research ideas from a group of external experts. Despite complaints that this process is biased against novel ideas, there is poor understanding of an alternative system that may overcome this bias: the use of individual discretion. Here, we conduct the first quantitative study of how individual discretion affects a research funding portfolio. Using internal project selection data from the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), we describe how a portfolio of projects selected by individual discretion differs from a portfolio of projects selected by traditional peer review. We show that ARPA-E program directors tend to fund proposals with greater disagreement among experts, and they also appear to prefer proposals described in reviewer comments as "creative." These choices do not result in a significant tradeoff with short-term project performance, and they enable ARPA-E to fund more uncertain and creative research ideas, which supports the agency's mission of pursuing novel ideas for transformational energy technology

     
    Export in Literaturverwaltung   RIS-Format
      BibTeX-Format
    Quelle: Verbundkataloge
    Sprache: Englisch
    Medientyp: Buch (Monographie)
    Format: Online
    Schriftenreihe: NBER working paper series ; no. w32033
    Schlagworte: Forschungsfinanzierung; Forschungsevaluation; Peer-Review-Verfahren; USA; Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives; Government Policy
    Umfang: 1 Online-Ressource, illustrations (black and white)
    Bemerkung(en):

    Hardcopy version available to institutional subscribers