Name File Type Size Last Modified
figure1a.png image/png 66.2 KB 03/25/2021 07:07:AM
figure1b.png image/png 44.8 KB 03/25/2021 07:07:AM
figure2.png image/png 77 KB 03/25/2021 07:07:AM
figure3a.png image/png 45.2 KB 03/25/2021 07:07:AM
figure3b.png image/png 44.9 KB 03/25/2021 07:07:AM
figure4.png image/png 190.2 KB 03/25/2021 07:07:AM
figure5a.png image/png 48.2 KB 03/25/2021 07:07:AM
figure5b.png image/png 59 KB 03/25/2021 07:07:AM
figure6.png image/png 43.4 KB 03/25/2021 07:07:AM
figurea1.png image/png 65 KB 03/25/2021 07:07:AM

Project Description

Summary:  View help for Summary The credibility revolution in economics has promoted causal identification using randomized control trials (RCT), difference-in-differences (DID), instrumental variables (IV) and regression discontinuity design (RDD). Applying multiple approaches to over 21,000 hypothesis tests published in 25 leading economics journals we find that the extent of p-hacking and publication bias varies greatly by method. IV (and to a lesser extent DID) are particularly problematic. We find no evidence that: (1) Papers published in the `Top 5' journals are different to other; (2) The journal revise and resubmit process mitigates the problem; (3) Things are improving through time.

Scope of Project

Subject Terms:  View help for Subject Terms p-hacking; publication bias; research methods; causal inference; p-curves
JEL Classification:  View help for JEL Classification
      A11 Role of Economics; Role of Economists; Market for Economists
      B41 Economic Methodology
      C13 Estimation: General
      C40 Econometric and Statistical Methods: Special Topics: General
      I23 Higher Education; Research Institutions
Data Type(s):  View help for Data Type(s) other


Related Publications

Published Versions

Export Metadata

Report a Problem

Found a serious problem with the data, such as disclosure risk or copyrighted content? Let us know.

This material is distributed exactly as it arrived from the data depositor. ICPSR has not checked or processed this material. Users should consult the investigator(s) if further information is desired.