Zikmund-FisherBJ. Time to retire the 1-in-X risk format. Med Decis Making. 2011;31(5):703–4.
2.
PighinSSavadoriLBarilliECremonesiLFerrariMBonnefonJ-F. The 1-in-X effect on the subjective assessment of medical probabilities. Med Decis Making. 2011;31(5):721–9.
3.
SirotaMJuanchichMKostopoulouOHanakR. Decisive evidence on a smaller-than-you-think phenomenon: revisiting the “1-in-X” effect on subjective medical probabilities. Med Decis Making. 2014;34(4):419–429.
4.
SimmonsJPNelsonLDSimonsohnU. False-positive psychology: undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychol Sci. 2011;22(11):1359–66.
5.
RenkewitzFFuchsHMFiedlerS. Is there evidence of publication biases in JDM research?Judgm Decis Mak. 2011;6(8):870–81.
6.
FrancisG. Too good to be true: publication bias in two prominent studies from experimental psychology. Psychon Bull Rev. 2012;19(2):151–6.
7.
AhmedISuttonAJRileyRD. Assessment of publication bias, selection bias, and unavailable data in meta-analyses using individual participant data: a database survey. BMJ. 2012;344:d7762.
8.
FergusonCJBrannickMT. Publication bias in psychological science: prevalence, methods for identifying and controlling, and implications for the use of meta-analyses. Psychol Methods. 2012;17(1):120–8.
9.
FergusonCJHeeneM. A vast graveyard of undead theories publication bias and psychological science’s aversion to the null. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2012;7(6):555–61.
