Meta‐analysis, can it ever fail?

By J. Kotiaho, J. L. Tomkins. 2002

60 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Forestry, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d91ed3315625b6ba5ead41d43d0b5689333364a4

How researchers see this paper

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

In Forestry

1. H. Hillebrand
2. Clint D. Kelly
3. J. Kotiaho
4. M. Pärtel
5. I. Kühn
6. J. Pykälä

In Statistics and Probability

1. H. Hillebrand
2. Clint D. Kelly
3. A. Kahn
4. A. Helm
5. J. Kotiaho
6. M. Pärtel
7. Michael D. Jennions
8. A. Møller

Citations in the corpus

• Top-down versus bottom-up control of autotrophic biomass—a meta-analysis on experiments with periphyton (2002, background): “Moreover, a correlation between sample size and effect size, which was proposed to indicate a publication bias (Kotiaho and Tomkins 2002), was not detected for any effect measure except for dI.”
• The interrelationships between resource-holding potential, resource-value and reproductive success in territorial males: How much variation can we explain? (2008, background): “…Rosenthal 1991; Begg 1994; Duval and Tweedie 2000a; Duval and Tweedie 2000b), including evolutionary ecologists (e.g. Arnqvist and Wooster 1995; Palmer 1999; Jennions and Møller 2002; Kotiaho and Tomkins 2002; Koricheva 2003; Jennions et al. 2004; Tomkins and Kotiaho 2004; Møller et al. 2005).”
• The Extent and Consequences of P-Hacking in Science (2015, background): “However, meta-analyses are compromised if the studies being synthesized do not reflect the true distribution of effect sizes [5,35–37].”
• The role of niche breadth, resource availability and range position on the life history of butterflies (2004, result): “Even though very interesting, this finding must be interpreted with caution, because the sample size in the groups causing the interaction was very small and thus the true effect size is likely to be overestimated (Kotiaho and Tomkins 2002, Tomkins and Kotiaho 2004).”
• Mate choice for indirect genetic benefits: scrutiny of the current paradigm (2007, background): “Journal compilation © 2007 British Ecological Society, Functional Ecology , 21 , 638‐644 the likelihood of heavy publication bias towards supportive evidence (Csada, James & Espie 1996; Kotiaho & Tomkins 2002 ), it is surprising that in general the magnitude of the indirect benefits from mate choic”
• A survey of the statistical power of research in behavioral ecology and animal behavior (2003, background): “This may partly reflect a publication bias toward significant findings (Kotiaho and Tomkins, 2002; Palmer, 1999, 2000).”
• Strength, slope and variability of marine latitudinal gradients (2004, methodology): “252 Hillebrand: Marine gradients of diversity Meta-analyses (and other reviewing techniques) can suffer from a publication bias, resulting in data material which mainly contains significant results (Gurevitch & Hedges 1999, Blenckner & Hillebrand 2002, Kotiaho & Tomkins 2002).”
• Effect of habitat area and isolation on plant trait distribution in European forests and grasslands (2012, background): “All single species studies were excluded due to risk of biased sampling, where only results that support the investigated hypothesis may be published (Rosenthal 1979, Kotiaho and Tomkins 2002).”