Search results

No comprehensive statistical assessment of publication bias has been conducted in remdesivir-based intervention research for COVID-19 patients. This study aims to examine all meta-analyses of the efficacy of remdesivir interventions in COVID-19 patients and perform a statistical assessment of publication bias.

This is an analytic study conducted to assess the impact of publication bias on the results of meta-analyses of remdesivir-based interventions in patients infected with COVID-19. All English full-text meta-analyses published in peer-reviewed journals in 2019–2021 were included. A computerized search of PubMed and Web of Science electronic databases was performed on December 24, 2021. The trim-and-fill method calculated the number of missing studies and the adjusted cumulative effect sizes.

The final analysis comprised 21 studies with 88 outcomes. The investigation revealed missing studies in 46 outcomes (52%). Seventy-six missing studies were replaced in the outcomes using the trim-and-fill procedure. The adjusted recalculated effect sizes of the 27 outcomes increased by an average of 0.04. In comparison, the adjusted effect size of 18 outcomes fell by an average of 0.036. Only 14 out of 46 outcomes with publication bias were subjected to a gray literature search (30%). To discover related research, no gray literature search was conducted in most outcomes with publication bias (n = 32; 70%). In conclusion, the reported effect estimates regarding the effect of remdesivir in COVID-19 patients are only slightly affected by publication bias and can be considered authentic. Health-care decision-makers in COVID-19 should consider current research results when making clinical decisions.

Most health decisions are based on the effect sizes revealed in meta-analyses. When deciding on remdesivir-based treatment for COVID-19 patients, therefore, the outcomes of this investigation may be of paramount importance to health policymakers, leading to better treatment strategies.

According to the results, no major publication bias and missing studies were detected on average. Therefore, the calculated effect sizes of remdesivir-based interventions on meta-analyses can be used as authentic and unbiased benchmarks by health-care decision-makers in treating patients with COVID-19.

This is the first study to examine the effect of publication bias and gray literature searches on the results of meta-analyses of treatment with COVID-19 (remdesivir).

No study has investigated the effects of different parameters on publication bias in meta-analyses using a machine learning approach. Therefore, this study aims to evaluate the impact of various factors on publication bias in meta-analyses.

An electronic questionnaire was created according to some factors extracted from the Cochrane Handbook and AMSTAR-2 tool to identify factors affecting publication bias. Twelve experts were consulted to determine their opinion on the importance of each factor. Each component was evaluated based on its content validity ratio (CVR). In total, 616 meta-analyses comprising 1893 outcomes from PubMed that assessed the presence of publication bias in their reported outcomes were randomly selected to extract their data. The multilayer perceptron (MLP) technique was used in IBM SPSS Modeler 18.0 to construct a prediction model. 70, 15 and 15% of the data were used for the model's training, testing and validation partitions.

There was a publication bias in 968 (51.14%) outcomes. The established model had an accuracy rate of 86.1%, and all pre-selected nine variables were included in the model. The results showed that the number of databases searched was the most important predictive variable (0.26), followed by the number of searches in the grey literature (0.24), search in Medline (0.17) and advanced search with numerous operators (0.13).

The results of this study can help clinical researchers minimize publication bias in their studies, leading to improved evidence-based medicine.

To the best of the author’s knowledge, this is the first study to model publication bias using machine learning.

Current publication practices in the scholarly (International) Business and Management community are overwhelmingly anti-Popperian, which fundamentally frustrates the production of scientific progress. This is the result of at least five related biases: the verification, novelty, normal science, evidence, and market biases. As a result, no one is really interested in replicating anything. In this essay, the author extensively argues what he believes is wrong, why that is so, and what we might do about this. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

This is an essay, combining a literature review with polemic argumentation.

Only a tiny fraction of published studies involve a replication effort. Moreover, journal authors, editors, reviewers and readers are not interested in seeing nulls and negatives in print. This replication crisis implies that Popper’s critical falsification principle is actually thrown into the scientific community’s dustbin. Behind the façade of all these so-called new discoveries, false positives abound, as do questionable research practices meant to produce all this allegedly cutting-edge and groundbreaking significant findings. If this dismal state of affairs does not change for the good, (International) Business and Management research is ending up in a deadlock.

A radical cultural change in the scientific community, including (International) Business and Management, is badly needed. It should be in the community’s DNA to engage in the quest for the “truth” – nothing more, nothing less. Such a change must involve all stakeholders: scholars, editors, reviewers, and students, but also funding agencies, research institutes, university presidents, faculty deans, department chairs, journalists, policymakers, and publishers. In the words of Ioannidis (2012, p. 647): “Safeguarding scientific principles is not something to be done once and for all. It is a challenge that needs to be met successfully on a daily basis both by single scientists and the whole scientific establishment.”

Publication practices have to change radically. For instance, editorial policies should dispose of their current overly dominant pro-novelty and pro-positives biases, and explicitly encourage the publication of replication studies, including failed and unsuccessful ones that report null and negative findings.

This is an explicit plea to change the way the scientific research community operates, offering a series of concrete recommendations what to do before it is too late.

The overall goal of science is to build a valid and reliable body of knowledge about the functioning of the world and how applying that knowledge can change it. As personnel and human resources management researchers, we aim to contribute to the respective bodies of knowledge to provide both employers and employees with a workable foundation to help with those problems they are confronted with. However, what research on research has consistently demonstrated is that the scientific endeavor possesses existential issues including a substantial lack of (a) solid theory, (b) replicability, (c) reproducibility, (d) proper and generalizable samples, (e) sufficient quality control (i.e., peer review), (f) robust and trustworthy statistical results, (g) availability of research, and (h) sufficient practical implications. In this chapter, we first sing a song of sorrow regarding the current state of the social sciences in general and personnel and human resources management specifically. Then, we investigate potential grievances that might have led to it (i.e., questionable research practices, misplaced incentives), only to end with a verse of hope by outlining an avenue for betterment (i.e., open science and policy changes at multiple levels).

The article clarifies the wage–employment relation in a developing country. Several years ago, many articles in the United States indicated that the relation between increasing wages and increasing unemployment is unclear. These articles from the United States are insufficient to be applicable to all countries, especially developing countries such as Colombia where institutions and the wage–employment relation differ from those in the United States.

A meta-analysis methodology was used as 28 estimates of long-run wage–employment elasticity in Colombia from 1998 to 2016 were analyzed.

This article provides insights into how real wages affect employment. Despite publication biases, results showed that a 1% increase in wages results in a 0.11% decline in employment in the long run.

Due to the publication bias, it is not considered how variables such as sectors, estimation strategies (panel data, partial adjustment, cointegration and non-linear least squares, among others), formal/informal urban sectors, government services and transportation, and qualified and unskilled workers affect the true elasticity value.

This paper includes implications for public policy because the results are important to minimum wages policy in a developing country.

There are no studies regarding the wage–employment relation in a developing country. The empirical results obtained in this article are useful for regulators, policy makers and researchers to understand whether employment is affected by real wages.

With the growing interest in behavioral health and medical decision-making, this systematic integrative review aims to understand research on cognitive biases in the context of consumer health information seeking and where future research opportunities may reside.

Following a systematic review protocol, 40 empirical research articles, out of 1,127 journal research papers from 12 academic databases, from 1995 to 2019, are included for review.

The study of cognitive biases in consumer health information seeking is a nascent and fast-growing phenomenon, with variety in publication venues and research methods. Among the 16 biases investigated, optimistic bias and confirmation bias have attracted most attention (46.9%). Researchers are most interested in specific disease/illness (35%) and the health factors of consumer products (17.5%). For theoretical presence, about one-third of the reviewed articles have cited behavioral economist Daniel Kahneman, although most of the references are the early works of Kahneman.

As an emerging research area, there exists plenty of cognitive biases to be investigated in the context of health information seeking. In the meantime, the adoption of more recent theoretical insights such as nudge for debiasing may enrich this research area. Health communication scientists may find incorporating the behavioral decision research framework enriches the disciplinary inquiry of health information seeking, while information scientists could use it to commence the cognitive turn of information science evolution.

Through evidence-based understanding, this review shows the potential research directions that health communication scientists and information scientists could contribute to optimize health decisions through the adoption of behavioral decision research framework.

This paper aims to present the results of a recent survey, in which faculty and educators who are members of the ARES, ERES, AsRES, PRRES and AREUEA were asked to rate their perception of 18 real estate journals currently available as academic publications (peer reviewed) to ascertain if there was a relationship between the affiliation of the respondent and their perception of journal quality. In addition, it aims to compare the opinions of survey respondents by their academic rank, tenure status, and the type of institution they work at. Finally the analysis seeks to investigate the possible existence of a publication bias based on where researchers have published their work.

Over 300 respondents completed the electronic survey during the latter half of 2007. Respondents provided quality ratings of the journals as well as where they actually published.

In this paper the academic respondents’ responses were analyzed (n=220) and it is clear that the perceived quality of the journals, as well as the respondent's knowledge of the various journals, varied depending on the faculty member's affiliation with a given academic association. Most researchers were aware of the journals published in their home regions, although this was not always the case. This suggests there is a need for more outreach/marketing by publishers and editors to clearly differentiate the focus of our academic journals.

Respondents were conference attendees and predominantly US‐based. Therefore, results may be somewhat biased against publications from other regions of the world.

This is the first time a review of journal quality has been conducted on an international level and included only real estate journals. Results will be useful to the rank and file of university faculty in targeting journals for their publications, particularly when journal quality matters. Results can also benefit the various academic organizations and publishers that produce the journals in targeting their promotion to the members of the academic associations where the knowledge level is significantly lower.

This paper aims to assess the cumulative evidence on the determinants of sustainability assurance (SA) reports and the choice of assurance provider quality. It addresses the contradictory and inconsistent findings of past studies conducted over the past two decades.

The authors undertake a meta-regression analysis that enables systematic, comparative assessment of the variables associated with the choice of SA and the type of assurance provider. The authors undertake a chronological analysis with the aim of identifying systematic differences in the empirical evidence across distinct time periods.

The results indicate that there is very little evidence to support many of the expected associations between commonly studied predictor variables (namely, measures based on agency and corporate governance conceptions) and the choice of SA and the assurance provider type. As a result, research on this topic does not make as effective a contribution as might be expected. There is, however, a time period difference. The authors find results from studies using company data prior to 2010 are significantly different from those using post-2010 data. The results indicate the decision to publish SA to be significantly associated with companies in the oil industry and utilities, and larger organisations where agency costs tend to be higher. Obtaining assurance from a higher-quality provider is found to be associated with companies in environmentally sensitive industries and in stakeholder-oriented countries.

The study shows that as yet there is not sufficient evidence to support expected results. Users of the research should be aware of this, and researchers should know that more work is needed. The authors suggest researchers take greater care in the choice and comparability of variable measurement and expand the conceptual base when selecting predictor variables.

Companies need to be more transparent and accountable to critical stakeholders such as report users and regulators, and the latter should be more aware that the organisational practice of SA and choice of service provider have changed over time and are increasingly open to agency and other cultural biases.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to apply meta-regression techniques for understanding the body of literature on SA and provider choice.

The most enduring measure of how individuals make personal decisions affecting their health and safety is the compensating wage differential for job safety risk revealed in the labor market via hedonic equilibrium outcomes. The decisions in turn reveal the value of a statistical life (VSL), the value of a statistical injury (VSI), and the value of a statistical life year (VSLY), which have both mortality and morbidity aspects that we describe and apply here. All such tradeoff rates play important roles in policy decisions concerning improving individual welfare. Specifically, we explicate the recent empirical research on VSL and its related concepts and link the empirical results to the ongoing examinations of many government policies intended to improve individuals' health and longevity. We pay special attention to recent issues such as the COVID pandemic and newly emerging foci on distributional consequences concerning which demographic groups may benefit most from certain regulations.