Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Research bias: Some preliminary findings

  • Comments on the Economics of Science
  • Published:
Knowledge and Policy

‘testing of hypothesis’ is frequently merely a euphemism for obtaining plausible numbers to provide ceremonial adequacy for a theory chosen and defended on a priori grounds. Harry G. Johnson

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Andrews, D.F., P.J. Bickel, F.R. Hampel, P.J. Huber, W.H. Rogers, J. W. Tukey (1972).Robust estimates of location. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chalmers, Iain (1990). Underreporting research is scientific misconduct.JAMA 263:10, pp. 1405–08.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chalmers, Thomas, Cynthia Frank and Dinah Reitman (1990). Minimizing the three stages of publication bias.JAMA 263:10, pp. 1392–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denton, Frank (1985). Data mining as an industry.Review of Economics and Statistics 57:124–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickersin, Kay (1990). The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its occurrence.JAMA 263:10, pp. 1385–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feigenbaum Susan and David Levy (1993). The market for (ir)reproducible econometrics.Social Epistemology 7:215–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feigenbaum, Susan and David Levy (1994). The self-enforcement mechanism in science. Presented at Eastern Economic Association Annual Meeting, Boston, March.

  • Friedman, Paul (1990). Correcting the literature following fraudulent publication.JAMA 263:10, pp. 1416–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, Harry G. (1975).On economics and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohn, Alexander (1988).False prophets. Blackwell: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leamer, Edward E. (1983). Let's take the con out of econometrics.American Economic Review 73:31–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy, David (1988). The market for fame and fortune.History of Political Economy 20:4, pp. 615–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeifer, Mark and Gwendolyn Snodgrass (1990). The continued use of retracted, invalid scientific literature.JAMA 263:10, pp. 1420–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharp, David (1990). What can and should be done to reduce publication bias?JAMA 263:10, pp. 1390–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stigler, George (1963). On scientific writing. InThe intellectual and the marketplace. London: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tukey, John W. (1986).Philosophy and principles of data analysis 1965–1986, Vol. 4,The collected works John W. Tukey. Monterey: Wadsworth & Brooks.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tullock, Gordon (1959). Publication decisions and tests of significance: A comment.Journal of the American Statistical Association 54:593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, Kenneth J. (1993).Shazam 7.0. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Susan Feigenbaum
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David M. Levy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

A much revised and enlarged version of this article was published inRationality and Society, 8:3 (1996), pp. 261–276.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Feigenbaum, S., Levy, D.M. Research bias: Some preliminary findings. Knowledge and Policy 9, 135–142 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02696303

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02696303

Keywords

Search

Navigation