Publication bias: A “bird's-eye view” of meta-analytic practice in criminology and criminal justice

• Published in: Journal of criminal justice 2022-01, Vol.78, p.101878, Article 101878
• Main Author: Kim, Bitna
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Bias; Bias detection and correction tests; Content analysis; Criminal justice; Criminology; Medicine; Meta-analysis; Psychology; Publication bias; Research synthesis; Simulation; Statistical methods
• ISSN: 0047-2352; 1873-6203
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2021.101878

The aims of the current study were 2-folded. This study examined the recent meta-analyses in the criminology and criminal justice (CCJ) field to capture a snapshot of the current state of publication bias practices and provided practical guidelines and recommendations on how to address the issues of publication bias in meta-analytic reviews. The content analysis reviewed 64 meta-analyses published in top-tier journals in the CCJ field in 2019–2020. The narrative review of previous simulation studies in medical science and psychology fields was performed to synthesize practical guidelines on publication bias in meta-analyses. Recent CCJ meta-analytic studies have at least partially addressed the issue of publication bias by employing systematic search and statistical methods. However, the current state of CCJ meta-analyses does not meet the expectation required in medical science and psychology that all meta-analytic reviews report the range of effect size estimates across multiple publication bias detection and correction tests. The statistical methods commonly used for assessing publication bias are applied without testing and interpreting assumptions about the missing studies. There is a need to continue monitoring the quality of meta-analyses to gain a comprehensive picture of how bias leaves a potential imprint in CCJ research. •CCJ meta-analytic studies have partially addressed the issue of publication bias.•Reporting range of effect sizes across multiple publication bias tests is required.•Researchers and publishers need to continue monitoring the quality of meta-analyses.