Credibility crisis in agricultural economics

AbstractWe provide empirical evidence of research practices that can undermine the credibility of empirical research in agricultural economics. We find that, in four popular journals, most studies are underpowered, a characteristic that, when coupled with publication bias, yields unreliable and exaggerated effect sizes. This problem is exacerbated by selective reporting of statistically significant results and multiple hypothesis testing without any adjustments to statistical inferences. Survey respondents self‐report engaging in practices that are consistent with these empirical findings. Addressing these problems in agricultural economics will require that editors, reviewers, and donors change the norms and incentives for authors.