On 27 October, I wrote about a study that showed that there is no link between corporate tax rates and economic growth in a country. As part of that post, I stated that publications that found a positive relationship between lower taxes and higher growth were 2.7 to 3 times more likely to be published than studies that found a negative relationship. Some people asked me if the bias in published papers could really be that big? The answer is it may even be bigger.
Very interesting to see the difference between medicine and economics etc.
I'd also refer readers to the work of John Ionnidis (my spelling may be slightly out) including the brief but delightful "Why most published research findings are false", published in a peer reviewed journal 20 or so years ago.
Very interesting to see the difference between medicine and economics etc.
I'd also refer readers to the work of John Ionnidis (my spelling may be slightly out) including the brief but delightful "Why most published research findings are false", published in a peer reviewed journal 20 or so years ago.