đź“° What the Pattern Shows
Published studies report statistically significant results—rejections of the null hypothesis—more often than unpublished studies. This systematic gap is commonly labeled “publication bias.”
🔎 Why Many Assume Bias Is Prejudice
The prevailing interpretation holds that editors and reviewers prefer significant results and therefore discriminate against nonsignificant findings. That interpretation treats publication bias as the product of an irrational or systematic prejudice against null results.
đź’ˇ A Different Explanation: Bias Without Prejudice
- Evidence that reviewers or editors hold such a prejudice is surprisingly limited.
- Publication bias can arise even in the absence of prejudicial attitudes.
- Such bias can occur even when the peer-review process is operating as intended.
The core argument is that conventional scientific standards and the dutiful application of those standards can produce the same pattern—greater prevalence of significant findings in published work—without invoking irrational motives.
⚠️ Why This Matters
- Reinterpreting the roots of publication bias changes how corrective policies should be designed.
- If bias flows from standard scientific practices rather than prejudice, solutions should target incentives and methodological norms as much as editorial attitudes.
