Sorting the File Drawer: A Typology for Describing Unpublished Studies

A typology of unpublished studies is presented to describe various types of unpublished studies and the reasons for their nonpublication. Reasons for nonpublication are classified by whether they stem from an awareness of the study results (result-dependent reasons) or not (result-independent reasons) and whether the reasons affect the publication decisions of individual researchers or reviewers/editors. I argue that result-independent reasons for nonpublication are less likely to introduce motivated reasoning into the publication decision process than are result-dependent reasons. I also argue that some reasons for nonpublication would produce beneficial as opposed to problematic publication bias. The typology of unpublished studies provides a descriptive scheme that can facilitate understanding of the population of study results across the field of psychology, within subdisciplines of psychology, or within specific psychology research domains. The typology also offers insight into different publication biases and research-dissemination practices and can guide individual researchers in organizing their own file drawers of unpublished studies.

A simple, step-by-step guide to interpreting decision curve analysis

Background Decision curve analysis is a method to evaluate prediction models and diagnostic tests that was introduced in a 2006 publication. Decision curves are now commonly reported in the literature, but there remains widespread misunderstanding of and confusion about what they mean. Summary of commentary In this paper, we present a didactic, step-by-step introduction to interpreting a decision curve analysis and answer some common questions about the method. We argue that many of the difficulties with interpreting decision curves can be solved by relabeling the y-axis as “benefit” and the x-axis as “preference.” A model or test can be recommended for clinical use if it has the highest level of benefit across a range of clinically reasonable preferences. Conclusion Decision curves are readily interpretable if readers and authors follow a few simple guidelines.

The Publication Decision

The publication decision email is the moment of truth. Hundreds, perhaps thousands of work hours have now been judged and—in a single click—the decision appears. Our inclination to search for key terms such as “accept” or “reject” may blind us to important elements in the letter. This chapter explains why decision letters deserve careful reading and presents strategies for replying.

Who Really Decides?

The roles of editors, reviewers and authors in the publication process are loosely analogous to a court of law. Authors bring their case in the form of a manuscript to the journal (the court) for publication consideration. They present arguments in the cover letter for why the journal should take a positive view on publication. The chief editor functions as the judge, examining evidence provided by the authors and critiques/recommendations by external reviewers (the jury) and syntheses/recommendations by a member of the editorial board (trial counsel). A crucial step in the publication decision is the approbation from the reviewers. This chapter discusses these analogies and the importance of writing a manuscript with reviewers in mind.

Analysis of Publication Decisions for Journal of Research in Music Education Manuscripts (2009–2014)

The primary purpose of this study was to investigate characteristics of manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Research in Music Education ( JRME) representing various research methodologies. A database was compiled comprising all manuscripts that received a publication decision from February 2009 through March 2014 ( N = 506). Only submissions that went through the complete review process ( n = 423) were analyzed and included quantitative, qualitative, historical, and mixed methods research. The proportions of the 125 articles accepted for publication during this timeframe by research methodology category included 29.39% of the quantitative submissions and 27.41% of the qualitative submissions. Quantitative research represented 65.95% of submissions and 66.40% of acceptances, and qualitative represented 29.39% of submissions and 27.20% of acceptances. Historical studies and mixed methods studies each accounted for very small proportions of submissions and acceptances. Comparisons of the summative judgments that reviewers provided for the quantitative and qualitative articles when recommending against acceptance also were examined and found to be comparable. Data indicate that publications decisions were not systematically related to research methodology.

Modeling HRM and Performance Linkages

This article focuses on methodology in the literature on human resources (HR) management and performance. Whenever a theoretical model of HR and performance is tested and estimated using empirical data, a binary decision regarding whether the model is supported (yes or no) is typically made. If support is found, it is either because the model is correct or the method is wrong (i.e. a false positive, or Type I, error of inference). If support is not found, it is either because the model is wrong or the method is wrong (i.e. a false negative, or Type II, error of inference). The article hopes to help readers to better evaluate the contribution of published research on HR and performance. Second, it hopes to help authors in preparing their work for publication and avoid problems that may otherwise lengthen the review process or adversely affect the publication decision.

Optimal Liability for Libel

Although courts justify the constitutional law of libel with consequential reasoning, the true consequences of liability for harmful speech have never been fully explored. We construct an analytical framework for studying libel law, emphasizing both the positive and negative externalities generated by the publication of information. Our model highlights two distinct decisions that a publisher faces, the verification decision and the publication decision. We first demonstrate that a single damage measure for publication of false libelous information, such as the “damages equal harm” measure, cannot simultaneously induce socially optimal decisions regarding verification and publication. We then argue that the damage measure should depend on the efficacy of the verification process. Interestingly, when verification is reasonably effective, the damage award should be set equal to the social benefit from truthful publication. Our analysis provides a theoretical foundation for important elements of current libel law. It also suggests practicable avenues for reform.