Reviewer bias for statistically significant results: A reexamination

N. S. Fagley, I. Jean McKinney

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

7 Scopus citations


Argues that the conclusion reached by D. R. Atkinson et al (see record 1983-01959-001) that reviewers were biased toward statistically significant results is premature. A statistical power analysis shows that the power of their bogus study was low. Low power in a study reporting nonsignificant findings is a valid reason for recommending not to publish. Therefore, differential acceptance recommendations for bogus manuscripts differing only in the statistical significance of the results were justified. (16 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2006 APA, all rights reserved).

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)298-300
Number of pages3
JournalJournal of Counseling Psychology
Issue number2
StatePublished - Apr 1983
Externally publishedYes

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Social Psychology
  • Clinical Psychology
  • Psychiatry and Mental health


  • bias toward statistically significant results for publication, reviewers, criticism of conclusions of D. R. Atkinson et al

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Reviewer bias for statistically significant results: A reexamination'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this