P-value hacking significantly distorts published scientific literature
the verdict
SUPPORTED
the evidence backs this
confidence 79/100
Extensive methodological research demonstrates that p-hacking and selective reporting practices significantly distort published scientific literature and undermine the validity of meta-analytic findings.
Evidence for · 6
Patterns of preregistration and publication of trials in Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions.
2025 · cited by 3
Notes that p-hacking and selective reporting have detrimental effects on scientific literature and evidence synthesis.
See more details
More for · 5
Spurious precision in meta-analysis of observational research.
2025 · cited by 3
Demonstrates how p-hacking interacts with methodological decisions to produce spurious precision that undermines standard meta-analytic techniques.
Beyond the p Value Dichotomy: Alternatives for Statistical Inference-A Critical Review.
2026 · cited by 1
Highlights how dichotomous p-value interpretations distort scientific inference and oversimplify uncertainty.
A Statistical Analysis Plan Template for Observational Studies: Promoting Quality and Rigor in Research.
2025 · cited by 0
Discusses how data-driven analyses and questionable research practices like p-hacking threaten the rigor and trustworthiness of scientific findings in observational research.
Correcting for publication bias in a meta-analysis with the p-uniform* method.
2026 · cited by 0
Explains how publication bias and related distortions threaten the validity of meta-analyses and overestimate effect sizes.
p-Hacking and Publication Bias Interact to Distort Meta-Analytic Effect Size Estimates
2020 · cited by 0
Shows via simulation that p-hacking and publication bias interact to distort meta-analytic effect size estimates and inflate false-positive rates.