Ioannidis John P A, Munafò Marcus R, Fusar-Poli Paolo, Nosek Brian A, David Sean P
Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA; Department of Health Research and Policy, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA; Department of Statistics, Stanford University School of Humanities and Sciences, Stanford, CA 94305, USA; Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford, CA 94305, USA.
MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK; School of Experimental Psychology, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Trends Cogn Sci. 2014 May;18(5):235-41. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2014.02.010. Epub 2014 Mar 18.
Recent systematic reviews and empirical evaluations of the cognitive sciences literature suggest that publication and other reporting biases are prevalent across diverse domains of cognitive science. In this review, we summarize the various forms of publication and reporting biases and other questionable research practices, and overview the available methods for probing into their existence. We discuss the available empirical evidence for the presence of such biases across the neuroimaging, animal, other preclinical, psychological, clinical trials, and genetics literature in the cognitive sciences. We also highlight emerging solutions (from study design to data analyses and reporting) to prevent bias and improve the fidelity in the field of cognitive science research.
近期对认知科学文献的系统综述和实证评估表明，发表偏倚及其他报告偏倚在认知科学的不同领域普遍存在。在本综述中，我们总结了发表偏倚和报告偏倚的各种形式以及其他有问题的研究行为，并概述了用于探究其存在的现有方法。我们讨论了认知科学领域中神经影像学、动物研究、其他临床前研究、心理学、临床试验和遗传学文献中存在此类偏倚的现有实证证据。我们还强调了新兴的解决方案（从研究设计到数据分析和报告），以防止偏倚并提高认知科学研究领域的准确性。
