Francis (2012a, 2012b, 2012c, 2012d, 2012e, in press) attacks individual papers through critiques that apply faulty logic to analyses ironically biased by cherry picking. However well intentioned, the critiques are probably counterproductive to their stipulated goal and certainly unfair to the targeted authors.
CohenJ. (1962). The statistical power of abnormal-social psychological research: A review. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 65, 145–153.
2.
CohenJ. (1994). The earth is round (p <. 05). American Psychologist, 49, 997.
3.
CooperH. M.HedgesL. V.ValentineJ. C. (2009). The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
4.
FanelliD. (2012). Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries. Scientometrics, 90, 891–904.
5.
FrancisG. (2012a). Evidence that publication bias contaminated studies relating social class and unethical behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 109, e1587. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1203591109
6.
FrancisG. (2012b). The psychology of replication and replication in psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 585–594.
7.
FrancisG. (2012c). Publication bias and the failure of replication in experimental psychology. Psychomic Bulletin & Review. Advance online publication. doi:10.3758/s13423-012-0322-y
8.
FrancisG. (2012d). The same old new look: Publication bias in a study of wishful seeing. i-Perception, 3(3), 176–178.
9.
FrancisG. (2012e). Too good to be true: Publication bias in two prominent studies from experimental psychology. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 151–156.
10.
FrancisG. (in press). Publication bias in “Red, Rank, and Romance in Women Viewing Men” by Elliot et al. (2010). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General.
11.
IoannidisJ.TrikalinosT. A. (2007). An exploratory test for an excess of significant findings. Clinical Trials, 4, 245–253.
12.
PigottT. D. (2012). Advances in meta-analysis. New York, NY: Springer Verlag.
13.
RosenthalR. (1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 638–641.
SimmonsJ. P.NelsonL. D.SimonsohnU. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22, 1359–1366.
16.
SterlingT. D. (1959). Publication decisions and their possible effects on inferences drawn from tests of significance–or vice versa. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 54, 30–34.
17.
SterlingT. D.RosenbaumW.WeinkamJ. (1995). Publication decisions revisited: The effect of the outcome of statistical tests on the decision to publish and vice versa. American Statistician, 49, 108–112.
