English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Fluctuating asymmetry is hypothesized to predict developmental instability (DI) and fitness outcomes. While published studies largely support this prediction, publication bias remains an issue. Biologists have increasingly turned to meta-analysis to estimate true support for an effect. Van Dongen and Gangestad (VDG it also detects the presence of p-hacking (where researchers exploit researcher “degrees of freedom”), not just publication bias. Alternative selection methods also provide a means to estimate average effect size correcting for publication bias, but may better account for heterogeneity in effect sizes and publication decisions than p-curve. We provide a demonstration by performing p-curve and selection method analyses on the set of effects from VD&G. We estimate an overall effect size range (r = 0.08–0.15) comparable to VD&G, but with notable differences between domains and techniques. Results from alternative estimation methods can provide corroborating evidence for, as well as insights beyond, traditional meta-analytic estimates.

symmetry

p-Curve and Selection Methods as Meta-Analytic Supplements for Biologists: A Demonstration of Effect Size Estimation in Studies of Human Fluctuating Asymmetry