Publication bias and merit in ecology

98 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Larger pollinators deposit more pollen on stigmas across multiple plant species—A meta‐analysis (2020, result): “Publication bias may result from an overrepresentation of published studies with significant and novel findings whereas studies with nonsignificant findings could potentially remain in the grey literature, and therefore difficult to identify and access (Lortie et al., 2007).”
Rising complexity and falling explanatory power in ecology (2014, background): “Larger sample sizes, in concert with a publication bias (see Lortie et al. 2007) toward statistically significant results, could lead to a decline in the average R2 value reported.”
Women in Academic Science: Experimental Findings From Hiring Studies (2018, background): “…that women fare worse than their male counterparts when it comes to having their manuscripts reviewed and accepted for publication (see Borsuk et al., 2009; Budden et al. 2008; Lortie et al., 2007), in our 2010 review we found overwhelming evidence that the peer review process is gender neutral.”
The Influence of Author Gender, National Language and Number of Authors on Citation Rate in Ecology (2009, background): “Publication bias refers to the potential for some studies to be subject to assessment based on attributes other than the scientific merit of the article in question (Lortie et al. 2007, Paludi and Bauer 1983, Tregenza 2002).”