Abstract:Researchers are more likely to share notable findings. As a result, published findings tend to overstate the magnitude of real-world phenomena. This bias is a natural concern for asset pricing research, which has found hundreds of return predictors and little consensus on their origins. Empirical evidence on publication bias comes from large scale meta-studies. Meta-studies of cross-sectional return predictability have settled on four stylized facts that demonstrate publication bias is not a dominant factor: (1) almost all findings can be replicated, (2) predictability persists out-of-sample, (3) empirical $t$-statistics are much larger than 2.0, and (4) predictors are weakly correlated. Each of these facts has been demonstrated in at least three meta-studies. Empirical Bayes statistics turn these facts into publication bias corrections. Estimates from three meta-studies find that the average correction (shrinkage) accounts for only 10 to 15 percent of in-sample mean returns and that the risk of inference going in the wrong direction (the false discovery rate) is less than 10%. Meta-studies also find that $t$-statistic hurdles exceed 3.0 in multiple testing algorithms and that returns are 30 to 50 percent weaker in alternative portfolio tests. These facts are easily misinterpreted as evidence of publication bias effects. We clarify these misinterpretations and others, including the conflating of ``mostly false findings'' with ``many insignificant findings,'' ``data snooping'' with ``liquidity effects,'' and ``failed replications'' with ``insignificant ad-hoc trading strategies.'' Meta-studies outside of the cross-sectional literature are rare. The four facts from cross-sectional meta-studies provide a framework for future research. We illustrate with a preliminary re-examination of equity premium predictability.

Most claimed statistical findings in cross-sectional return predictability are likely true

Reassessing False Discoveries in Mutual Fund Performance: Skill, Luck, or Lack of Power? A Reply

Do t-Statistic Hurdles Need to be Raised?

Publication Bias in Asset Pricing Research

Controlling False Discovery Rates under Cross-Sectional Correlations

False (and Missed) Discoveries in Financial Economics

The Conditional Prediction Function: A Novel Technique to Control False Discovery Rate for Complex Models

Predictability of Equity Returns over Different Time Horizons: A Nonparametric Approach

False Variable Selection Rates in Regression

Simultaneous high-probability bounds on the false discovery proportion in structured, regression, and online settings

Large-scale Multiple Testing: Fundamental Limits of False Discovery Rate Control and Compound Oracle

False Discovery Control in Multiple Testing: A Brief Overview of Theories and Methodologies

Controlled Variable Selection from Summary Statistics Only? A Solution via GhostKnockoffs and Penalized Regression

Lucky factors

False-Positive Psychology

Controlling the False Discovery Rate in Subspace Selection

False Discovery Rate Control for Confounder Selection Using Mirror Statistics

Does Peer-Reviewed Research Help Predict Stock Returns?

Transcriptome data are insufficient to control false discoveries in regulatory network inference

Controlling the False Discovery Rate for Binary Feature Selection via Knockoff

False discovery rate control under Archimedean copula