What do you think are the main factors contributing to publication bias in your field?

Answer Explanations

• Career pressures to publish positive results Other (please specify)

  user-74194
  personal agendas by scientists involved and pressure from their employers (esp. government agencies) to obtain a conclusion that supports a particular policy.
• Career pressures to publish positive results

  user-683654
  Many people are under undue pressure to publish or they will not be promoted.
• Other (please specify)

  user-82487
  Biased publications usually escape the holy eyes of editor and reviewers
• Career pressures to publish positive results Journal's lack of interest in publishing null or negative results

  user-649046
  It is both - consequences of traditionally journals publishing studies reporting positive results and authors highlighting positive findings to increase publication chances. 
• Career pressures to publish positive results Reader's lack of interest in null or negative results Journal's lack of interest in publishing null or negative results

  user-340576
  Umpublish negative results leads to repeat experiments for others with the same result just because there is a lack of literature supporting them.
• Reader's lack of interest in null or negative results Journal's lack of interest in publishing null or negative results Other (please specify)

  user-583633
  See my comments from Q1
• Career pressures to publish positive results Journal's lack of interest in publishing null or negative results Other (please specify)

  user-753537
  Universities' and grant providers' lack of interest in null findings
• Career pressures to publish positive results

  user-561710
  people only care about p-values without really understanding what they mean
• Journal's lack of interest in publishing null or negative results

  user-263828
  See above
• Career pressures to publish positive results Reader's lack of interest in null or negative results

  user-606148
  Studies of learning technology effectiveness or efficacy often use weak designs, and it is easy to attribute a lack of positive results to weaknesses in the study design and treatment implementation.  Furthermore, it is unusual for studies to be conducted by anyone other than the group that created the ICT application.  On those rare occasions when someone other than the authors do a study that is powerful enough to attribute the result to the treatment (ICT application), with a weak or negative effect size, it's common for such studies to be published years, or even a decade or more, after the release of the ICT application with its initial claims of positive results.  And, in my experience, these studies tend to appear in third-tier journals with modest impact factors.  
  
  
• Career pressures to publish positive results Reader's lack of interest in null or negative results Journal's lack of interest in publishing null or negative results Other (please specify)

  user-773118
  Others include human nature.
• Career pressures to publish positive results Other (please specify)

  user-778496
  Vendor-influenced bias.
• Career pressures to publish positive results

  user-951310
  Recently, I have witnessed a main author admit to looking for a lower number to update a toxicity factor, so the lower value was achieved by ignoring toxicological principles of dose-response and what constitute critical effects.
• Career pressures to publish positive results

  user-388091
  Negative results are inherently less interesting because there could be many explanations. When they actually challenge a major paradigm, they get published. This is not a problem. The problem is that there are individuals who prefer ladder climbing to truth. Their focus on ladder climbing naturally leads to their more vocal position in the scientific community. 
• Other (please specify)

  user-235868
  I don't feel that  publication bias is a major factor in the field of fish bioacoustics.
• Other (please specify)

  user-414245
  The results are not scientifically important, and do not significantly advance science.  Moreover, they clutter the literature.
• Career pressures to publish positive results

  user-861631
  Career pressure to publish positive results is a significant factor contributing to publication bias in many academic and research fields. Researchers often face the need to demonstrate productivity and impact to secure promotions, funding, and professional recognition. Publishing studies with positive results can be seen as a way to achieve these goals, as these results tend to be more valued by journals and readers. This can lead researchers to selectively report only the most impressive findings, neglecting or omitting null or negative results. Consequently, the body of literature can become biased, reflecting a distorted representation of reality and limiting scientific progress.
• Career pressures to publish positive results Journal's lack of interest in publishing null or negative results

  user-520983
  (1) Personal agendas. Some people have goals that conflict with independent science. They either want a chemical restricted or don't want a chemical restricted and will not findings that demonstrate the opposite of what they believe. (2) Value of you work to funding agencies. Negative results do not set you up to continues the line of work. Funding agencies don't care about research on things that are safer than they thought. Journals also don't care about that unless it improves the impact factor (which is a flawed system).
• Career pressures to publish positive results Reader's lack of interest in null or negative results Journal's lack of interest in publishing null or negative results Other (please specify)

  user-447943
  The reasons mentioned before.
• Career pressures to publish positive results Reader's lack of interest in null or negative results Journal's lack of interest in publishing null or negative results Other (please specify)

  user-149459
   Studies funded by pharmaceutical companies or other entities with vested interests might be more likely to report positive findings due to conscious or unconscious biases. These studies are also more likely to be published. 
   Journal editors may have preferences for certain types of studies or outcomes, which can influence what gets published. 
• Career pressures to publish positive results Journal's lack of interest in publishing null or negative results

  user-650602
  PIs are judged on their publications and less on what they actually do for the university.  Not publishing early in their start or not publishing in the higher impact journals are held against them. 
• Reader's lack of interest in null or negative results Journal's lack of interest in publishing null or negative results

  user-584178
  I've explicitly had a journal reject a manuscript of mine due to a negative result.
• Other (please specify)

  user-673264
  See question 1
• Other (please specify)

  user-60829
  All answers are correct
• Other (please specify)

  user-267614
   In population genetics, findings that reveal new insights into genetic diversity, evolutionary history, or the discovery of new genetic markers are more likely to be published than studies confirming previous results or reporting non-significant findings. 
• Career pressures to publish positive results Reader's lack of interest in null or negative results Journal's lack of interest in publishing null or negative results

  user-109201
  Nothing 
• Career pressures to publish positive results Journal's lack of interest in publishing null or negative results

  user-21090
  The predominant factor is journal's lack of interest in publishing null or negative results. Reforms are greatly needed.
• Other (please specify)

  user-781389
  see above. some science is driven by long-standing assumptions that are not based on data or founded in more recent analyses using newer technology
• Reader's lack of interest in null or negative results Journal's lack of interest in publishing null or negative results

  user-570468
  I would say first the journals and reviewers, followed by readers that tend to focus on positive results, ignoring negative results, when convenient.
• Reader's lack of interest in null or negative results

  user-149708
  same answer
• Other (please specify)

  user-633316
  Country of scientist
• Career pressures to publish positive results Other (please specify)

  user-508906
  Insufficient training of Authors
  Complex topics
  Data overload
• Journal's lack of interest in publishing null or negative results

  user-293647
  As above.
• Career pressures to publish positive results Reader's lack of interest in null or negative results Journal's lack of interest in publishing null or negative results

  user-640071
  Besides the above reasons, one more important reason is the listing of authors, the inclusion of big names in the author list as names of the director(s), or Heads of the institutions or Peers'.  Sometimes, you are not permitted even at the Institute level to submit for publication of your novel findings without the inclusion of the names of your head, seniors and director. If you succeed in submission there are so many other hurdles.
• Career pressures to publish positive results Reader's lack of interest in null or negative results Journal's lack of interest in publishing null or negative results

  user-765807
  
  Several factors contribute to this:

  1. Journals’ Preferences: Journals tend to favor positive, novel, and statistically significant findings. Studies with null or negative results may be less likely to get published.
  2. Selective Reporting: Researchers may selectively report only significant findings, leaving out non-significant results. This can skew the overall evidence base.
  3. File Drawer Effect: Unpublished studies (often with null results) remain in researchers’ “file drawers,” leading to an incomplete picture.
  4. Funding and Industry Influence: Studies funded by industry or with conflicts of interest may be more likely to report positive outcomes.
• Career pressures to publish positive results Journal's lack of interest in publishing null or negative results

  user-902950
  Null/negative studies are regarded as a failure by some influent members of the community, i.e., hypothesis not formulated well enough to generate positive results - which, to me, is absolutely not correlated.
• Career pressures to publish positive results Journal's lack of interest in publishing null or negative results Other (please specify)

  user-232888
  As mentioned, when the results of the study might be compromised by the very funding agency developing the drug or product being tested.
• Other (please specify)

  user-197437
   In addition to those cited, Methodological Unknown of the authors 
• Journal's lack of interest in publishing null or negative results

  user-110809
  Journals 
• Career pressures to publish positive results Reader's lack of interest in null or negative results Journal's lack of interest in publishing null or negative results

  user-887682
  Majority are not interested in reading papers with null or negative results. 
• Career pressures to publish positive results Journal's lack of interest in publishing null or negative results

  user-787588
  The researchers are obliged to report mostly positive results and disregard negative results, due to the fact that reviewers frequently think that negative results are due to inaccurate experimental design or to mistakes during the experimental activities. For this reason, science is missing a part of the information that may have if negative results were accepted for publication. 
• Career pressures to publish positive results Reader's lack of interest in null or negative results Journal's lack of interest in publishing null or negative results

  user-610359
  Lack of awareness
• Career pressures to publish positive results Reader's lack of interest in null or negative results Journal's lack of interest in publishing null or negative results

  user-971114
  The above chosen ansers are responsible for the publication bias
• Other (please specify)

  user-887652
  Overwhelming confirmation bias.
• Journal's lack of interest in publishing null or negative results Other (please specify)

  user-246431
  customs
• Career pressures to publish positive results Other (please specify)

  user-111275
  Small Numbers and not blinded publications
• Reader's lack of interest in null or negative results Journal's lack of interest in publishing null or negative results

  user-525512
  readers—especially researchers, practitioners, and industry professionals—may be less interested in reading any study with null or negative results. This provides a disincentive for researchers to publish such findings, hence further fueling the problem of publication bias.
  journals prefer to publish novel, positive, or statistically significant studies because such studies are regarded as having an impact and, as a result, attract readers. This can therefore create the likelihood of publication bias toward studies that report positive findings, whereas studies with null or negative results may be ignored or are less likely to be published, hence less attractive to readers.
• Career pressures to publish positive results Reader's lack of interest in null or negative results

  user-6829
  It's a matter of how many publications and what positivity it brings to the world which uplift one's CV. This has resulted in many only interested in publication that shows positive results.  Also, these are the most read.
• Career pressures to publish positive results Reader's lack of interest in null or negative results Journal's lack of interest in publishing null or negative results

  user-575039
  All the above factors are really very important contributors of publication bias.   
• Career pressures to publish positive results Reader's lack of interest in null or negative results Journal's lack of interest in publishing null or negative results Other (please specify)

  user-725842
  The biotech and pharmaceutical industry faces several factors contributing to publication bias:
  
  Career pressures to publish positive results: Researchers often face significant pressure to publish positive results to advance their careers, secure tenure, and secure future funding. Positive outcomes are perceived as more impactful, enhancing the researcher's reputation and prospects.
  
  Reader's lack of interest in null or negative results: There is a general perception that null or negative results are less attractive or valuable, leading to fewer citations and less engagement from the scientific community.
  
  Journal's lack of interest in publishing null or negative results: Many journals prefer to publish studies with positive findings, which are believed to attract more readers and citations, enhancing the journal's impact factor.
  
  Others include:
  
  Funding agency expectations for positive outcomes: Funding agencies often expect positive results to justify their investment, creating pressure on researchers to deliver favourable outcomes.
  
  Industry partnerships and commercial interests: Collaborations with industry partners may drive a preference for positive findings that support product development and commercialization efforts.
  
  These factors collectively create an environment where positive findings are favoured, leading to an underrepresentation of null or negative results and potentially distorting the scientific literature.