Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Cherry picking

Cherry picking is a logical fallacy characterized by the selective presentation of evidence that favors a desired conclusion while deliberately ignoring or suppressing contradictory data, thereby distorting the overall picture to mislead or persuade.^[1]^[2] Also termed the fallacy of suppressed evidence or observational selection, it manifests as a form of confirmation bias where only confirming instances are highlighted, often leading to invalid causal inferences by neglecting the full dataset or context.^[3]^[4] This error undermines rational discourse across fields such as scientific research, policy analysis, and argumentation, where comprehensive evidence evaluation is essential for establishing causal relationships rather than spurious correlations.^[5] In empirical investigations, cherry picking can inflate apparent effects—such as by isolating short-term trends to claim perpetual patterns—while disregarding long-term variability, which erodes the reliability of conclusions drawn from incomplete subsets.^[6] It is particularly insidious in data-driven domains, as it exploits the human tendency toward pattern-seeking without rigorous falsification, fostering overconfidence in unrepresentative samples.^[7] Notable applications and critiques highlight its role in perpetuating flawed narratives; for instance, in statistical analysis, it parallels practices like subset selection without adjustment for multiple comparisons, which can produce misleading significance.^[5] Countering it demands first-principles scrutiny of datasets, including adversarial testing against omitted evidence, to prioritize causal realism over selective affirmation—though institutional biases in source selection may systematically favor certain interpretations, necessitating meta-evaluation of evidential completeness.^[2]

Etymology and Definition

Origin of the Term

The term "cherry picking" originates as a metaphor from the agricultural practice of harvesting cherries, in which workers selectively gather only the ripest, most accessible fruit from trees, bypassing unripe or difficult-to-reach specimens to maximize efficiency and yield quality. This literal selectivity lent itself to figurative extension, denoting the opportunistic choice of advantageous options while ignoring less favorable ones.^[8] The idiomatic sense of "cherry-pick" to selfishly select the best emerged in American English around 1959, as evidenced by early pejorative uses implying biased preference for superior elements.^[8] Dictionaries such as Merriam-Webster first record the term in this intransitive form—"to select the best or most desirable"—with a known usage dating to 1965, reflecting its rapid adoption for describing non-literal selective behavior.^[9] This evolution draws from the inherent pejorative connotation of orchard work's opportunism but remains distinct from unrelated applications, such as the mechanical "cherry picker" hydraulic lift, which derives separately from literal fruit elevation aids introduced in the 1940s. No credible etymological evidence links the term to ancient precedents, despite occasional unsubstantiated anecdotes; its documented roots are firmly modern and Anglo-American.^[10]

Formal Definition and Scope

Cherry picking constitutes the deliberate or inadvertent selection of data, evidence, or examples that favor a predetermined conclusion, coupled with the systematic exclusion or minimization of opposing or disconfirming information, thereby yielding a non-representative portrayal of the underlying reality. This practice fundamentally impairs causal reasoning by promoting inferences from skewed subsets that fail to capture the full variability or distribution of phenomena, often resulting in spurious attributions of cause and effect.^[11]^[12] The scope of cherry picking extends to scenarios involving suppressed evidence, such as the unjustified removal of outliers or anomalous results that deviate from expected patterns without methodological rationale, in contrast to legitimate analytical techniques like stratified sampling, which employ predefined, theoretically grounded criteria to partition data for enhanced precision and representativeness. Empirical verifiability serves as the demarcation criterion: valid filtering prioritizes completeness and a priori transparency to preserve inferential integrity, whereas cherry picking retrofits selections to align with outcomes, eroding the capacity to discern true causal mechanisms from artifacts of incomplete scrutiny.^[12] Distinct from the broader psychological predisposition of confirmation bias—which entails a general inclination to acquire or interpret information affirmatively toward existing beliefs—cherry picking manifests as the targeted curation and deployment of selective elements from an accessible corpus, functioning as a rhetorical or analytical maneuver that exacerbates distortions in causal inference. This tactical dimension enables the propagation of invalid generalizations, such as extrapolating trends from atypical samples while disregarding the aggregate evidence base, thereby undermining the pursuit of causal realism through non-falsifiable or untested claims.^[13]^[14]

Historical Development

Early Conceptual References

In ancient Greek rhetoric, critiques of the Sophists during the 5th century BCE highlighted practices resembling selective argumentation, where debaters prioritized persuasive points over comprehensive truth-seeking. Plato, in dialogues such as Gorgias, portrayed Sophists like Gorgias as employing eristic methods—contentious arguments designed to prevail rather than illuminate—often by amplifying one side while eliding refutations, a tactic tied to their relativistic view that superior rhetoric could establish any position as valid.^[15]^[16] Aristotle further distinguished legitimate rhetoric from such sophistry in his Sophistical Refutations (circa 350 BCE), cataloging fallacies including the concealment of assumptions or contrary evidence to feign proof, underscoring the ethical demand for dialectical balance in persuasion.^[17] Medieval scholasticism extended these concerns through formalized logic. Thomas Aquinas, in Summa Theologica (1265–1274), adapted Aristotelian syllogistics to theological inquiry, insisting on the integration of all pertinent premises to avoid erroneous conclusions driven by partial reasoning; incomplete syllogisms, by omitting adverse factors, risked distorting causal inferences toward preconceived doctrines, a vulnerability he addressed in discussions of practical reason and virtue. This proto-caution against suppressing counter-premises aligned with broader medieval emphasis on syllogistic completeness to counter biased interpretations in disputations.^[18] By the 19th century, empirical warnings emerged in nascent statistics. Francis Galton, in works like Natural Inheritance (1889), scrutinized heredity data drawn from selective biographical samples of eminent individuals, noting how overemphasis on exceptional cases introduced ascertainment bias and misrepresented population norms—a recognition that biased sampling skewed inferences, as seen in his regression analyses correcting for such distortions in familial talent distributions.^[19]^[20] Galton's methodological self-critique prefigured systematic scrutiny of data selection without invoking modern fallacy terminology.

Formalization in the 20th Century

The fallacy of suppressed evidence, equivalent to modern understandings of cherry picking in argumentation, received formal treatment in mid-20th-century informal logic texts. Irving M. Copi's Introduction to Logic (1953) explicitly classified it among informal fallacies, defining it as the deliberate or inadvertent omission of pertinent evidence that would weaken or refute the presented conclusion, thereby rendering the argument misleading despite the inclusion of supportive facts. This systematization reflected growing academic emphasis on evaluating inductive reasoning beyond formal syllogisms, distinguishing it from earlier vague critiques of partiality by integrating it into pedagogical frameworks for detecting flawed inference.^[21] The colloquial term "cherry picking" gained traction in U.S. English during the 1950s for selective choice of favorable items, extending metaphorically to evidential contexts by the mid-1960s as critiques of biased data presentation proliferated in statistical and philosophical discussions. Post-World War II debates over wartime statistical manipulations, such as selective reporting in operations research, heightened awareness of these practices, prompting their codification in analytic philosophy as failures of evidential completeness rather than mere rhetorical flaws. By the 1970s, texts in informal logic routinely invoked suppressed evidence alongside related errors like hasty generalization, emphasizing its prevalence in non-deductive arguments where comprehensive data appraisal is essential.^[22] Concurrent advances in behavioral psychology reinforced this formalization indirectly through empirical demonstration of selective evidence-seeking. Peter Wason's experiments in the early 1960s revealed confirmation bias, wherein participants systematically favored hypothesis-confirming tests while neglecting disconfirmatory ones, providing causal insight into why cherry picking persists as a reasoning error despite logical training. Though not labeled as such, this work aligned with fallacy theory by quantifying the cognitive mechanisms underlying incomplete evidence presentation. By the 1980s, the concept had achieved institutional adoption in debate pedagogy and critical thinking instruction, appearing as a staple in curricula analyzing real-world argumentation.^[23]

Applications in Science and Statistics

Data Selection in Research

In empirical research across scientific disciplines, cherry picking manifests as the selective inclusion or exclusion of data subsets, outcomes, or analyses to emphasize results supporting a preconceived hypothesis while omitting contradictory evidence, thereby distorting the representativeness of the dataset and inflating apparent effect sizes. This practice undermines the validity of statistical inferences by violating principles of random sampling and comprehensive reporting, leading to systematic biases that prioritize statistical significance over evidential completeness. For instance, researchers may subset data post-collection to highlight favorable patterns, such as analyzing only specific time periods or subgroups that yield desired correlations, which erodes causal inference by fostering spurious associations absent in the full dataset.^[24] A prominent example is the "file-drawer problem," where studies yielding null or non-significant results are disproportionately withheld from publication, leaving the literature skewed toward positive findings that represent only a fraction—often estimated at around 5% under conventional significance thresholds—of conducted research. Coined by statistician Robert Rosenthal in 1979, this bias assumes journals publish the minority of Type I error-prone significant results while non-significant studies accumulate unpublished in researchers' files, potentially requiring thousands of suppressed null studies to nullify a meta-analytic effect. Empirical assessments, such as fail-safe N calculations, quantify the robustness of reported effects against this threat, revealing how selective non-publication can perpetuate illusory consensus in fields like psychology and social sciences.^[25] Related practices include p-hacking, where researchers iteratively test multiple analytical variations—such as altering covariates, endpoints, or outlier exclusions—until obtaining a p-value below 0.05, then reporting only the significant outcome without disclosing the exploratory process. Simulations demonstrate that such flexible analyses can yield false positives in over 50% of cases under common research conditions, particularly when sample sizes are modest and hypotheses are under-specified. This form of data dredging compromises the integrity of hypothesis testing by capitalizing on chance variability, distinct from legitimate exploratory analysis but often indistinguishable without transparency.^[24] These selective practices contribute substantially to reproducibility failures, as evidenced by large-scale replication efforts; for example, the Open Science Collaboration's 2015 project attempted to replicate 100 psychological studies from top journals, succeeding in only 36% of cases where the original effect direction and significance were matched, with replicated effects averaging half the original size—a discrepancy attributable in part to selective reporting and analysis flexibility in initial publications. Such patterns extend beyond psychology, fostering overestimation of true effects and hindering cumulative scientific progress by prioritizing novel, significant results over representative evidence.^[26] To counteract cherry picking, preregistration has emerged as a methodological safeguard, requiring researchers to publicly document hypotheses, data collection plans, and analytical strategies prior to observation, thereby limiting post-hoc adjustments and ensuring all predefined outcomes are reported regardless of significance. Adopted widely since the mid-2010s through platforms like the Open Science Framework and journal policies, preregistration reduces opportunities for selective subsetting by enforcing a priori commitments, with studies showing it decreases p-hacking incidence and improves alignment between registered plans and final reports. While not universally mandated, its implementation in grant requirements and peer review has enhanced evidential reliability across empirical domains.^[27]

Connection to Reproducibility Issues

Cherry-picking contributes to the reproducibility crisis in scientific research by enabling the selective reporting of favorable data subsets while omitting contradictory results, which inflates effect sizes and undermines the reliability of published findings. In a prominent example from preclinical cancer biology, researchers at Amgen attempted to replicate 53 landmark studies published in high-impact journals between 2002 and 2011; only 11% (6 out of 53) could be independently confirmed, with failures often attributable to undisclosed selective choices in data, experimental conditions, or cell lines that were not representative of the full experimental scope.^[28] This pattern exemplifies how cherry-picking creates an illusion of robustness in initial reports, as negative or null subsets are excluded, leading to downstream replication failures across fields like psychology and biology where replication rates have hovered below 50% in large-scale efforts.^[28] Recent analyses quantify cherry-picking's mechanistic role in eroding reproducibility, particularly through practices like reporting only peak-performing subsets from multiple trials, which biases effect estimates upward and reduces statistical power in follow-up studies. A 2023 modeling study demonstrated that cherry-picking the strongest results from repeated analyses can elevate false positive rates, distort effect sizes, and diminish replication probabilities, with simulations showing power drops of up to 50% in affected datasets; this holds across disciplines, including psychology where selective outcome reporting correlates with low replicability in meta-reanalyses.^[29] In physics, while overall reproducibility is higher due to more standardized methods, isolated cases of data subset selection in high-energy experiments have mirrored these issues, contributing to debates over confirmatory power in particle detection claims. Empirical evidence from 2023 replication initiatives in psychology further links preregistered, transparent protocols to replication success rates exceeding 60%, contrasting with cherry-picked historical benchmarks under 40%.^[30] In climate science, cherry-picking manifests as selective timeframe choices, such as emphasizing the 1998–2013 interval—which began with a strong El Niño peak and exhibited slower surface temperature rises—to argue for a "global warming pause," while broader datasets from 1880 onward reveal a consistent upward trend driven by anthropogenic forcings.^[31] This approach ignores subsurface ocean heat accumulation and natural variability, resulting in overstated claims of stalled warming that fail under full-data scrutiny, as evidenced by post-2013 accelerations aligning with long-term models.^[32] Prioritizing comprehensive datasets over such subsets has proven essential for resolving these discrepancies, with integrated analyses confirming no true hiatus when accounting for all observational records.^[33] Efforts to mitigate cherry-picking's impact include pre-registration of analyses, which curbs selective reporting by committing to full result disclosure in advance; empirical evaluations show this enhances reproducibility by reducing bias in effect size estimates by 20–40% in controlled comparisons.^[34] In registered report formats, where protocols are peer-reviewed pre-data collection, replication-aligned outcomes increase significantly, underscoring the causal link between enforced comprehensiveness and credible science.^[35]

Applications in Medicine

Clinical Trials and Meta-Analyses

In clinical trials, cherry picking often occurs through selective outcome reporting, where primary endpoints are altered post-data collection to emphasize favorable results or adverse events are underreported. For example, in the VIGOR trial evaluating rofecoxib (Vioxx), Merck underreported myocardial infarctions in published analyses, contributing to delayed recognition of cardiovascular risks that led to the drug's withdrawal in 2004.^[36] The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has documented reporting biases, finding that trials deemed positive by regulators were 12 times more likely to be published in alignment with sponsor interpretations, while discrepancies in endpoint selection distorted safety profiles.^[37] Such practices, including hiding subsets of adverse data from 2000s trials, prompted FDA critiques emphasizing pre-registration of protocols to curb post-hoc adjustments.^[38] Meta-analyses amplify cherry picking risks by allowing selective inclusion of studies, excluding null or negative trials to inflate effect sizes. A 2023 statistical analysis demonstrated that meta-analysts who cherry-pick subsets of available studies—intentionally or otherwise—can bias pooled estimates, with effect sizes deviating significantly from comprehensive datasets.^[39] In antidepressant evaluations, discrepancies between clinical study reports and publications revealed underreporting of unfavorable outcomes, leading meta-analyses to rely on cherry-picked positive data and overestimate efficacy.^[40] This selective synthesis, as seen in trials of gabapentin and antipsychotics, shifts statistical significance and interpretations away from full evidence.^[41] Regulatory responses include the CONSORT guidelines, updated in 2022, which mandate pre-specification of outcomes in protocols and reports to prevent data cherry-picking and p-hacking.^[42] These standards require detailing all planned analyses upfront, enabling verification against registered protocols and reducing ethical lapses in evidence synthesis unique to medical regulatory contexts.^[43] Despite such measures, persistent underreporting of adverse events in randomized drug trials underscores ongoing challenges in enforcing transparency.^[44]

Public Health Reporting

In public health reporting, cherry picking often involves selectively presenting aggregated observational data from population surveillance systems, such as emphasizing relative metrics over absolute ones or peak-period outcomes without temporal context, which can mislead assessments of policy impacts like vaccination campaigns or risk stratification during outbreaks. During the COVID-19 pandemic (2020-2023), vaccine efficacy communications frequently highlighted relative risk reductions (RRR) from randomized trials—such as 95% for preventing symptomatic infection with mRNA vaccines—while omitting absolute risk reductions (ARR), which ranged from 0.7% to 1.2% given low baseline infection rates of about 1-2% in trial populations.^[45] ^[46] This selective focus on RRR inflated perceived benefits for low-risk groups, as ARR better reflects real-world number needed to vaccinate (NNV), often exceeding 100 to prevent one infection.^[45] Waning immunity provided another avenue for selective reporting, with initial public health bulletins prioritizing short-term efficacy against infection or hospitalization (e.g., 70-90% in early post-dose windows) but underemphasizing longitudinal data showing declines to 40-50% within 4-6 months, and near-zero in vulnerable subsets like the immunocompromised by late 2023.^[47] ^[48] CDC surveillance data from 2021-2024, when analyzed in full cohorts, revealed these patterns through observational studies tracking breakthrough infections and deaths, contrasting with truncated reports that favored unadjusted relative measures without baseline comparisons or subgroup breakdowns.^[49] ^[50] Such practices distorted risk perceptions, contributing to uniform policy responses despite age- and comorbidity-stratified data indicating absolute risks under 0.01% for hospitalization in healthy children and young adults.^[51] Full-cohort reanalyses from 2021-2024, including comparisons of pre- and post-vaccination periods, demonstrated that overreliance on relative metrics without absolutes or waning adjustments led to overestimations of sustained protection, verifiable through metrics like excess mortality trends that persisted despite high coverage.^[52] ^[53] This selective emphasis on favorable subsets, rather than comprehensive incidence or adjusted rates, fostered overreactions in resource allocation and behavioral mandates, as evidenced by policy evaluations critiquing incomplete data integration.^[51]

Role in Argumentation and Rhetoric

Classification as a Logical Fallacy

Cherry picking is recognized as an informal logical fallacy, specifically the fallacy of suppressed evidence, where an arguer presents only evidence favoring a conclusion while omitting relevant contradictory data that would alter its assessment.^[1] This classification emphasizes its role in distorting argument validity by incomplete presentation, rather than formal invalidity in deductive structure, as informal fallacies concern contextual relevance and soundness in natural language reasoning.^[1] In Charles Hamblin's seminal 1970 analysis of fallacies, such suppressions are critiqued for eroding dialectical fairness, as they prevent opponents from engaging the full evidentiary landscape required for robust refutation or acceptance. Unlike hasty generalization, which errs through overextension from an insufficient or unrepresentative sample, cherry picking presupposes access to a larger evidence set but intentionally curtails it to sustain a preferred interpretation, thereby introducing selectivity absent in mere sampling error.^[54] This distinction underscores cherry picking's alignment with fallacies of exclusion, prioritizing persuasive coherence over empirical completeness, and verifiable through reconstruction of omitted data that would necessitate qualifiers or reversals in the claim.^[55] In Bayesian frameworks of reasoning, cherry picking contravenes the principle of total evidence, which mandates conditioning beliefs on all available, pertinent data to yield calibrated posterior probabilities; selective incorporation instead amplifies prior biases, yielding overconfident or skewed updates that fail epistemic norms of coherence and calibration.^[56] Consequently, it undermines truth-seeking by substituting partial confirmation for comprehensive falsification, privileging hypothesis-aligned subsets over integrated evidence evaluation essential for causal inference and probabilistic validity.^[57]

One-Sided Evidence Presentation

One-sided evidence presentation refers to the rhetorical strategy of deploying cherry picking to construct persuasive narratives in debates and discourse by emphasizing only data or examples that align with a desired conclusion, while systematically excluding disconfirming information. This approach exploits audience tendencies toward confirmation bias, presenting a skewed portrayal that mimics comprehensive support for a position. Unlike purely logical fallacies, it functions strategically in dynamic exchanges, where the goal is influence rather than strict validity, often leveraging emotional resonance over exhaustive analysis.^[11]^[2] Common tactics include spotlighting favorable anecdotes, such as isolated success stories, while omitting surrounding failures or broader patterns that would dilute their impact. For instance, advocates might cite a single positive outcome from an intervention to imply general efficacy, disregarding statistical failure rates or control group comparisons that reveal limited applicability. This selective highlighting is prevalent in opinion pieces and public arguments, where raw statistics are invoked without essential denominators or contextual baselines, distorting relative risks or proportions—e.g., absolute event counts presented sans population-adjusted rates, fostering exaggerated perceptions of rarity or prevalence. Such maneuvers thrive in time-constrained debates, where opponents lack immediate access to suppressed data, allowing initial impressions to dominate.^[4]^[13] These practices engender causal pitfalls by promoting false dichotomies, framing complex phenomena as all-or-nothing propositions that obscure intermediary causes or confounding variables. By curating evidence to suggest unambiguous linkages—e.g., correlating a policy with one metric's uptick while ignoring downstream trade-offs or alternative explanations—arguers erode causal realism, encouraging audiences to infer spurious direct effects from incomplete chains. Empirical analyses of argumentative patterns reveal cherry picking's ubiquity in partisan rhetoric, appearing in a substantial fraction of ideologically charged claims as a tool for narrative dominance rather than truth approximation.^[11]^[58] Both ideological camps deploy these tactics, yet in mainstream discourse, they are frequently recast as neutral "framing" when advancing left-leaning perspectives, such as selective crime reporting that highlights incidents without demographic breakdowns, thereby attributing patterns to systemic factors over behavioral correlates. This normalization reflects institutional biases in media and academia, where analogous selectivity from conservative viewpoints draws sharper scrutiny as outright distortion, perpetuating uneven standards for evidence integrity.^[59]^[60]

Examples in Politics and Media

Historical Political Cases

In the lead-up to and during the enforcement of the 18th Amendment, which prohibited the manufacture and sale of alcohol starting January 17, 1920, temperance advocates in political debates selectively cited localized reductions in alcohol-related arrests and improvements in worker productivity as evidence of nationwide success, while disregarding broader data on surging organized crime and violence tied to bootlegging operations. For instance, proponents treated preliminary surveys of family stability gains as definitive proof of moral uplift, even as homicide rates climbed from 5.6 per 100,000 in 1919 to peaks exceeding 9 per 100,000 by the late 1920s amid gang rivalries in cities like Chicago.^[61]^[62] During the McCarthy era from 1950 to 1954, U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy's Senate investigations into alleged communist infiltration cherry-picked associations from Venona Project decrypts and past affiliations—such as former memberships in the Communist Party USA—to implicate over 200 State Department employees and others, systematically downplaying or suppressing exonerating testimony, loyalty board clearances, and the lack of evidence for active espionage in most cases. McCarthy's February 9, 1950, Wheeling speech claimed a list of 205 known communists in the government, later revised downward without retraction, prioritizing sensational ties over comprehensive vetting, which fueled blacklists affecting thousands without trials.^[63]^[64] The Gulf of Tonkin incident in August 1964 exemplified selective intelligence handling when U.S. officials, including President Lyndon B. Johnson, presented naval reports of North Vietnamese attacks on the USS Maddox on August 2 (verified) and August 4 (disputed) to justify escalation, while declassified National Security Agency documents reveal they withheld signals intercepts questioning the second event's occurrence—later confirmed as a misinterpretation of false radar echoes—and radar data contradicting torpedo boat engagements. This curated narrative underpinned the August 7 Tonkin Gulf Resolution, granting broad war powers and leading to full U.S. combat involvement, with internal doubts omitted from congressional briefings.^[65]^[66] Throughout the Vietnam War, particularly from 1965 under General William Westmoreland's command, U.S. policy metrics emphasized "body counts" of enemy killed—reporting over 500,000 Viet Cong and North Vietnamese deaths by 1968—to demonstrate attrition strategy efficacy, yet omitted verification challenges, unit incentives for inflation (e.g., post-battle estimates without body recovery), and contextual realities like the enemy's 200,000 annual recruits and resilient supply lines, rendering the figures decoupled from territorial or political progress. Declassified Pentagon Papers later exposed how such selective quantification masked operational failures, prioritizing numerical victories over holistic assessments.^[67]

Contemporary Instances (Post-2000)

In climate change discussions, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Sixth Assessment Report (AR6), released in 2021-2023, has faced criticism for reconstructing temperature proxies in a manner susceptible to cherry picking, as evidenced by the emphasis on a "resurrected hockey stick" graph that selectively incorporates data to amplify recent warming trends while downplaying medieval warm periods or periods of natural variability.^[68] This approach contrasts with analyses highlighting the global warming hiatus from approximately 1998 to 2013, during which surface temperatures showed little increase despite rising CO2 levels, a period often dismissed in mainstream narratives as statistically insignificant short-term fluctuation rather than evidence against model projections.^[69] Recent records of 2023 and 2024 as the warmest years have been prominently featured to argue acceleration, yet critiques point to confounding factors like the 2023-2024 El Niño event, with some studies finding limited evidence for a detectable surge beyond expected variability when full datasets are considered.^[69]^[70] In U.S. election coverage post-2020, allegations of voter fraud often selectively focused on isolated irregularities, such as ballot processing delays or statistical anomalies in swing counties, while overlooking comprehensive post-election audits and recounts—for instance, Georgia's multiple hand recounts and forensic audits that affirmed the certified results with minimal discrepancies insufficient to alter outcomes.^[71] Conversely, claims of voter suppression in the same period highlighted turnout disparities in minority communities but frequently ignored aggregate data showing record-high participation rates, including over 158 million votes cast in 2020, the highest ever, and similar highs in 2024, which contradicted narratives of systemic barriers without full contextualization of expanded access measures like mail-in voting.^[72] Media reporting on immigration and crime in 2024 emphasized high-profile incidents involving undocumented immigrants, such as the February murder of Laken Riley by a Venezuelan national in Georgia, to underscore policy failures, yet often omitted integrated FBI Uniform Crime Reporting data and ICE statistics indicating that while over 13,000 immigrants with homicide convictions remained at large as of September 2024, overall crime rates among immigrants did not exhibit a detectable "wave" compared to native-born populations when controlling for demographics.^[73]^[74]^[75] This selectivity mirrors patterns in COVID-19 policy communication from 2020-2023, where initial efficacy claims from randomized trials—such as 95% protection against symptomatic infection for mRNA vaccines—dominated public health messaging, downplaying emerging breakthrough infection data, with CDC reports later documenting thousands of cases among fully vaccinated individuals, particularly as variants like Delta reduced effectiveness against infection to below 50% in some real-world settings.^[76]^[77] Economic reporting exhibits double standards in data selection, where subsets indicating persistent or rising poverty—such as U.S. Census figures showing 11.5% poverty rate in 2023—are amplified to critique policy, while positive subsets, like declines in extreme poverty linked to safety net expansions or the lowest child poverty rates in decades under alternative metrics, receive less attention, reflecting class-biased framing that prioritizes downturns correlated with lower-income groups.^[78]^[79] This pattern aligns with broader media tendencies to accept selective negative indicators for narratives of inequality while scrutinizing positive economic subsets as outliers, as seen in coverage of post-pandemic recovery where unemployment fell to 3.7% by late 2023 but regional or demographic spikes were foregrounded over national trends.^[79]

Detection, Prevention, and Debates

Identifying Cherry Picking

Detecting cherry picking involves systematic verification of data completeness and analytical integrity, focusing on whether presented evidence represents the full scope of available information or selectively favors a desired outcome. One primary method is to request and examine raw datasets or original protocols, as selective reporting often conceals unfavorable results; for instance, in clinical trials, discrepancies between pre-registered protocols and published outcomes signal potential bias if key endpoints are omitted or redefined post-hoc.^[80] ^[81] Statistical diagnostics provide empirical flags, such as inconsistent confidence intervals or effect sizes across data subsets, which may indicate suppression of variability; meta-regression analyses can test for such suppression by modeling heterogeneity and identifying outliers that align suspiciously with the narrative while excluding broader trends.^[39] In meta-analyses, counterfactual p-value distributions or trim-and-fill methods reveal if reported results deviate from expected randomness, as skewed funnel plots or excess significance suggest selective inclusion of studies.^[82] Logical red flags include the absence of acknowledged counterexamples or reliance on non-random sampling without justification, where claims of representativeness fail under scrutiny of sampling frames. Cross-referencing with independent replications prioritizes falsifiability, as convergent evidence from diverse sources strengthens validity, whereas isolated findings without replication attempts raise suspicion of tailored selection over comprehensive testing.^[83]

Strategies for Mitigation

Preregistration of research hypotheses and analysis plans prior to data collection prevents post-hoc adjustments that enable selective reporting of favorable outcomes, thereby enforcing transparency in evidential evaluation.^[35] Empirical analyses indicate that preregistration, particularly when combined with pre-analysis plans, substantially diminishes p-hacking and publication bias by committing researchers to predefined methods, with studies demonstrating improved reproducibility and reduced selective reporting in fields like psychology and economics.^[84] Registered Reports, a format adopted by journals since the mid-2010s, further mitigate this by accepting manuscripts based on methodological rigor rather than results, incentivizing the inclusion of null or contradictory findings.^[85] Mandatory data sharing policies, implemented by major journals such as those from PLOS and Nature groups post-2011, compel researchers to deposit full datasets in public repositories, allowing independent verification of analyses and exposure of omitted evidence.^[86] These policies, often tied to higher-impact outlets, facilitate replication and counteract cherry picking by enabling scrutiny of the complete evidential base, though compliance varies by discipline with stronger adherence in biomedical fields.^[87] Institutional incentives for publishing null results address the file drawer problem, where non-significant findings remain unpublished, distorting meta-analyses toward positive effects.^[88] Initiatives like dedicated journals for negative results and funding priorities for replication studies, emerging in the 2020s, encourage comprehensive reporting; for instance, adversarial collaborations pair opposing research teams to rigorously test hypotheses against counter-evidence, reducing one-sided interpretations as seen in psychological disputes over effect sizes.^[89] Shifting from overreliance on manipulable p-values to Bayesian updating frameworks promotes causal realism by probabilistically integrating all available data against prior distributions, avoiding selective emphasis on thresholds prone to exploitation.^[90] This approach quantifies uncertainty across the full evidence spectrum, with applications in evaluation showing decreased bias in theory testing compared to frequentist selective reporting.^[91]

Controversies in Accusations of Cherry Picking

Accusations of cherry picking frequently target selective data analyses, yet controversies arise when these claims erroneously conflate legitimate hypothesis-driven subset examinations with fallacious omission, particularly in empirical fields like clinical research where causal heterogeneity necessitates focused scrutiny. For instance, pre-specified subgroup analyses in randomized trials—guided by variables such as demographics or biomarkers that plausibly moderate effects—are standard practice to uncover treatment variations, not mere bias, as they align with causal inference principles requiring stratification by relevant confounders.^[92] Post-hoc explorations, while riskier for data dredging, can yield valid insights if transparently reported and tested against multiple comparisons, distinguishing them from intentional suppression when grounded in emergent causal patterns rather than confirmatory hunting.^[93] Blanket dismissals via cherry picking labels thus undermine truth-seeking by discouraging necessary disaggregation of effects, prioritizing aggregate uniformity over causal realism. Since 2020, amid heightened polarization in public and scientific discourses, invocations of cherry picking have proliferated as a meta-rhetorical tactic, often serving to evade substantive rebuttal by impugning the selector's motives rather than the data's validity, akin to an ad hominem pivot that shifts focus from evidence to process.^[94] This overuse transforms a diagnostic tool into a conversational halt, especially against skeptics challenging consensus views, where full datasets may be impractical or irrelevant to specific causal questions. Philosophical critiques highlight that all evidentiary presentations involve selectivity—mutual across debaters—rendering unilateral accusations suspect unless paired with demonstration of omitted counter-evidence's causal equivalence.^[95] Truth-oriented discernment demands causal criteria over rote inclusivity: selections are defensible if subsets bear direct mechanistic relevance, as in stratified empirical inquiries revealing disparities unapparent in totals, whereas fallacies emerge from ignoring comparably weighted contradictions. Bidirectional patterns in political rhetoric show both sides leveling the charge, yet systemic left-leaning tilts in academia and media amplify its deployment against data contradicting progressive priors, such as subgroup statistics on outcomes, often without reciprocal self-scrutiny.^[96] Effective mitigation favors contextual rebuttals—quantifying omitted data's impact via sensitivity analyses—over reflexive labeling, preserving rigorous debate amid institutional biases that skew source credibility toward narrative conformity.^[39]

References

[1]
Fallacies | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Cherry-Picking. Cherry-Picking the Evidence is another name for the Fallacy of Suppressed Evidence. Circular Reasoning. The Fallacy of Circular Reasoning ...
[2]
Cherry Picking: When People Ignore Evidence that They Dislike
Cherry picking is a logical fallacy where someone focuses only on evidence that supports their stance, while ignoring evidence that contradicts it.Examples of cherry picking · Why people cherry-pick... · The use of cherry picking...
[3]
Argumentation and Logical Fallacies
Oct 3, 2020 · Observational selection: Also called cherry-picking. Noticing only the observations that tend to form the patterns that one wants to see and ...
[4]
Cherry Picking - Logically Fallacious
When only select evidence is presented in order to persuade the audience to accept a position, and evidence that would go against the position is withheld.
[5]
Cherry Picking Data | Science Exposed
Cherry picking is the deliberate practice of presenting the results of a study or experiment that best support the hypothesis or argument, instead of reporting ...Missing: logical | Show results with:logical
[6]
6.5 Logical Fallacies – 1st Edition: A Guide to Rhetoric, Genre, and ...
Cherry picking – Picking and choosing only some of the available evidence in order to present only points most favorable to your point of view. If someone ...
[7]
[PDF] A logical fallacy is often what has happened when someone is ...
A logical fallacy is often what has happened when someone is wrong about something. It's a flaw in reasoning. Strong arguments are void of logical fallacies ...
[8]
Cherry-pick - Etymology, Origin & Meaning
Originating in American English (1959) from "cherry" + "pick," cherry-picking means to selfishly select the best; also names cranes for raising people or ...
[9]
Definition of CHERRY-PICK
- **Definition**:
[10]
History of Cherry pick - Idiom Origins
Cherry pick. Cherry picker is originally a British nautical expression, dating from the late 19th/early 20th century for an inferior seaman who would pick ...Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
[11]
What Is Cherry Picking Fallacy? | Definition & Examples - QuillBot
Jun 24, 2024 · The cherry picking fallacy occurs when only evidence supporting an argument is selected and presented, while contradictory evidence is ignored.
[12]
What question are we trying to answer? Embracing causal inference
May 21, 2024 · Cherry-picking results or question trolling can lead to type I errors, biased estimates becoming theory, and results for observational ...
[13]
Confirmation Bias: Real Bias or Delegitimization Rhetoric?
Aug 7, 2019 · Cherry-picking refers to citing evidence that supports one's beliefs or attitudes but ignoring evidence that conflicts with those beliefs or ...Missing: distinction | Show results with:distinction
[14]
Confirmation Bias And the Power of Disconfirming Evidence
Confirmation bias is our tendency to cherry-pick information that confirms our existing beliefs or ideas. Confirmation bias explains why two people with ...
[15]
Sophists | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
According to Kerferd, the sophists employed eristic and antilogical methods of argument, whereas Socrates disdained the former and saw the latter as a ...
[16]
Sophists, The - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Sep 30, 2011 · The Greek word sophistēs, formed from the noun sophia, 'wisdom' or 'learning', has the general sense 'one who exercises wisdom or learning'.
[17]
Aristotle's Rhetoric - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Mar 15, 2022 · According to ancient testimonies, Aristotle wrote an early dialogue on rhetoric entitled 'Grullos', in which he put forward arguments for why ...
[18]
Saint Thomas Aquinas: Summa Theologiae: I-II, 13
Further, it is for the same faculty to form a syllogism, and to draw the conclusion. But, in practical matters, it is the reason that forms syllogisms.Missing: Theologica bias
[19]
Francis Galton: Hereditarian
Galton was the founder of the statistical approach to heredity, now commonly called the biometric approach, which was greatly extended and developed by Karl ...
[20]
[PDF] Natural inheritance. By Francis Galton. - SciSpace
'HEREDITARY GENIUS," "INQUIRIES INTO HUMAN FACULTY," F/TC. Uontion. MACMILLAN AND CO. AND NEW YORK. 1889. The Rightof Trarulation ...
[21]
[PDF] The Rise of Informal Logic - Loc
Jul 1, 2014 · See for example, Copi (1953; 1978 5e:87). 5. Johnson (1967) ... for a valid argument to instantiate the fallacy of suppressed evidence.
[22]
Jeffrey Aronson: When I use a word . . . Cherry picking and berry ...
Mar 17, 2017 · Cherry picking originally meant “the action or practice of harvesting cherries” (Oxford English Dictionary). The term is recorded as having ...
[23]
humans actively sample evidence to support prior beliefs - bioRxiv
Jun 30, 2021 · Cherry-picking information: humans actively sample evidence to support prior beliefs ... 1960, 1968). This effect has often been described ...
[24]
The Extent and Consequences of P-Hacking in Science - PMC - NIH
Mar 13, 2015 · One type of bias, known as “p-hacking,” occurs when researchers collect or select data or statistical analyses until nonsignificant results become significant.
[25]
[PDF] The "File Drawer Problem" and Tolerance for Null Results
The file drawer problem suggests that journals only show 5% of studies with Type I errors, while 95% of studies with non-significant results are not reported.
[26]
Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science
We conducted a large-scale, collaborative effort to obtain an initial estimate of the reproducibility of psychological science.
[27]
Easy preregistration will benefit any research - Nature
Jan 22, 2018 · An effective registration process will enable customization to maximize the value of preregistration for specific research applications.Missing: mandates | Show results with:mandates
[28]
Raise standards for preclinical cancer research - Nature
Mar 28, 2012 · Fifty-three papers were deemed 'landmark' studies (see 'Reproducibility of research findings'). ... 53 papers examined at Amgen. Some non- ...
[29]
[PDF] The Role of Cherry Picking in the Replication Crisis
Cherry picking, reporting only the strongest results, can cause false positives, effect size bias, and lower replication power, distorting research and ...Missing: 2024 | Show results with:2024<|separator|>
[30]
Preregistering, transparency, and large samples boost psychology ...
Nov 9, 2023 · For the past decade, psychology has been in the midst of a replication crisis. ... cherry-picking results.” Low replicability may continue ...Missing: reproducibility physics
[31]
"Global Warming Has Stopped"? How to Fool People Using "Cherry ...
Feb 5, 2012 · The problem with this argument is that it is false: global warming has not stopped and those who repeat this claim over and over are either ...Missing: debate | Show results with:debate
[32]
The “Pause” in Global Warming: Turning a Routine Fluctuation into a ...
Those experts, too, saw no evidence for a decline in the temperature trend and instead decried the cherry-picking of observations on which that claim was based.
[33]
[PDF] Research Brief - Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment
Our study yields strong evidence against the presence of a global warming hiatus during the period of 1998 to 2013. By analyzing the long-term data in a ...
[34]
Preregistration and reproducibility - ScienceDirect.com
Preregistration improves effect size estimation and reproducibility by reducing selective reporting and increasing the share of "frequentist" researchers.
[35]
The preregistration revolution | PNAS
Ultimately, this decreases reproducibility (6–11). Mental Constraints on Distinguishing Predictions and Postdictions. It is common for researchers to alternate ...
[36]
Off-Label Use vs Off-Label Marketing: Part 2 - PubMed Central
Mar 27, 2023 · In articles published in the New England Journal of Medicine, Merck was shown to have under-reported myocardial infarctions in their VIGOR ( ...Off-Label Marketing · Market-Managing The Medical... · Box 2. International...
[37]
Reporting bias in clinical trials: Progress toward transparency and ...
Jan 19, 2022 · The results showed that trials judged to show a positive effect by the FDA were 12 times as likely to be published in a way consistent with the ...
[38]
[PDF] E19 A Selective Approach to Safety Data Collection in ... - FDA
Clinical trials intended to expand the label information of an approved drug with additional endpoints in the same patient population. For example: a. A drug is ...
[39]
A Note on Cherry-Picking in Meta-Analyses - PMC - NIH
Apr 19, 2023 · We study selection bias in meta-analyses by assuming the presence of researchers (meta-analysts) who intentionally or unintentionally cherry-pick a subset of ...
[40]
Review reports improved transparency in antidepressant drug trials
Jan 19, 2022 · “Doctors prescribe based upon what the drug companies choose to publish, which can be a cherry-picked version of the full story,” Turner said.
[41]
Outcome Reporting in Industry-Sponsored Trials of Gabapentin for ...
There is good evidence of selective outcome reporting in published reports of randomized trials.We examined reporting practices for trials of gabapentin ...
[42]
Guidelines for Reporting Outcomes in Trial Reports: The CONSORT ...
Dec 13, 2022 · The aim of the CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 extension was to develop harmonized, evidence- and consensus-based outcome reporting standards for clinical ...
[43]
CONSORT 2025 Statement: updated guideline for reporting ...
Apr 18, 2025 · CONSORT 2025 Statement: updated guideline for reporting randomised trials. Reporting guidelines for main study types.Abstracts · Search for reporting guidelines · CONSORT - Extension for...
[44]
Reporting bias in medical research - a narrative review - Trials Journal
Apr 13, 2010 · Selective reporting particularly concerns the underreporting of adverse events [12, 29–32]. For example, an analysis of 192 randomized drug ...
[45]
Efficacy and effectiveness of covid-19 vaccine - absolute vs. relative ...
Apr 14, 2022 · Reporting relative risk reduction (RRR), as usually done in phase 3 studies, does not consider the background risk of being infected and becoming ill with ...Missing: waning CDC
[46]
Misinformative measure in clinical trials and COVID-19 vaccine ...
The article concludes that relative risk reduction should not be used to measure treatment and vaccine efficacy in clinical trials.Missing: critiques | Show results with:critiques
[47]
[PDF] COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness - CDC
Oct 23, 2024 · - During 2023-2024, VE against hospitalization in immunocompromised waned to 0 by ~4-6 months. • This inconsistency is likely multifactorial, ...Missing: risk | Show results with:risk
[48]
COVID-19 Vaccine Booster Uptake and Effectiveness Among US ...
Jul 17, 2025 · COVID-19 severity and waning immunity after up to 4 mRNA vaccine doses in 73 608 patients with cancer and 621 475 matched controls in ...
[49]
Vaccine Effectiveness | COVID-19 - CDC
Sep 5, 2025 · Vaccine effectiveness is generally measured by comparing the frequency of health outcomes in vaccinated and unvaccinated people. Absolute ...Missing: critiques | Show results with:critiques
[50]
Real-world Effectiveness of mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines Among US ...
Mar 19, 2024 · Two-dose vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19–related death was 69.8% (95% CI, 65.9%‒73.3%) during the pre-Delta period and 55.7% (49.5%‒61.1 ...
[51]
COVID-19 false dichotomies and a comprehensive review of the ...
In this comprehensive narrative review, we deconstruct six common COVID-19 false dichotomies, address the evidence on these topics, identify insights relevant ...
[52]
Excess mortality across countries in the Western World since the ...
Excess mortality has remained high in the Western World for three consecutive years, despite the implementation of containment measures and COVID-19 vaccines.
[53]
(PDF) COVID-19 Infection Relative Risk Reduction Versus Absolute ...
Sep 17, 2025 · Objective: To compare RRR with ARR of SARS-CoV-2 infections since 2020-2022 period to 2023 and since 2023 to 2024. Methodology: Comparison of ...Missing: cherry | Show results with:cherry
[54]
What Is the Hasty Generalization Fallacy? | Grammarly Blog
Dec 30, 2022 · Anecdotal evidence and cherry-picking are similar fallacies, but there's a key difference between these and hasty generalizations: With a hasty ...
[55]
https://www.schachtmanlaw.com/2014/05/03/the-fallacy-of-cherry-picking-as-seen-in-american-courtrooms/
[56]
Bayesian Statistics vs. Bayesian Epistemology - Richard Carrier Blogs
Feb 25, 2020 · Bayesian reasoning is a logic, a way of carefully defining and vetting any reasoning you engage in. Statistics is a tool, generally a very complex tool.<|control11|><|separator|>
[57]
Cherry-Picking in the Bayesian Fields - by Dr R Barber
Nov 21, 2023 · If you allow yourself to become convinced that your favourite theory is the TRUTH, you become prey to confirmation bias and its attendant errors ...Missing: completeness | Show results with:completeness
[58]
On Detecting Cherry-picking in News Coverage Using Large ... - arXiv
Cherry-picking refers to the deliberate selection of evidence or facts that favor a particular viewpoint while ignoring or distorting evidence that supports an ...
[59]
15.5: Media Bias - Social Sci LibreTexts
Aug 11, 2025 · Cherry-picking ... Left-leaning media organizations produce news that makes Democrats look good and Republicans look bad, and right-leaning media ...
[60]
How to Spot 16 Types of Media Bias - AllSides
Types of media bias such as spin, slant, and sensationalism can distort our view. See examples of media bias appearing in journalism.
[61]
(PDF) Prohibition: A Sociological View - Academia.edu
... Prohibition. It is generally empha sized that temperance propagandists were selective in the evidence they used, and that tentative findings were as conclusive.
[62]
Temperance and Prohibition in America: A Historical Overview - NCBI
There is no convincing evidence that Prohibition brought on a crime wave; homicide had its highest rate of increase between 1900 and 1910; organized rackets ...Missing: selective | Show results with:selective
[63]
Senator McCarthy's Oversight Abuses
... evidence of their communist affiliation. During the public hearings, 106 ... sexual perversion.” Senator McCarthy repeatedly linked communism and the LGBTQ ...
[64]
Documents that Changed the World: Joseph McCarthy's 'list,' 1950
Oct 14, 2014 · Sen. Joseph McCarthy and his infamous “list” supposedly naming communists who had infiltrated the heart of the United States government.<|separator|>
[65]
Vietnam War Intelligence 'Deliberately Skewed,' Secret Study Says
Dec 2, 2005 · The National Security Agency has released hundreds of pages of long-secret documents on the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident.Missing: selective | Show results with:selective
[66]
Tonkin Gulf Intelligence "Skewed" According to Official History and ...
The National Security Agency today declassified over 140 formerly top secret documents -- histories, chronologies, signals intelligence [SIGINT] reports, and ...Missing: selective | Show results with:selective
[67]
A Vicious Entanglement, Part V: The Body Count Myth
Oct 12, 2017 · The filmmakers reinforced a false view on the problems of the body count that still influences how military professionals and scholars think about it today.Missing: selective reporting
[68]
CLINTEL's Critical Evaluation of the IPCC AR6 - Judith Curry
May 13, 2023 · Conclusion: The resurrected hockey stick of AR6 shows how vulnerable the IPCC process is to scientific bias. Cherry picking, misuse of the peer ...
[69]
A recent surge in global warming is not detectable yet - Nature
Oct 14, 2024 · Four global mean surface temperature records over 1850–2023 are scrutinized within. Our results show limited evidence for a warming surge; in ...Missing: criticism | Show results with:criticism
[70]
2023 was a really hot year. Then came 2024 - NPR
Dec 26, 2024 · It's looking like 2024 will be the hottest year since record-keeping began, unseating 2023 for the top spot. Climate change is playing a role.Missing: cherry IPCC
[71]
Bad-faith Election Audits Are Sabotaging Democracy Across the ...
Aug 4, 2021 · While this partisan review of election results drags on, the effort to unearth nonexistent evidence of widespread voter fraud is spreading to ...Missing: cherry picking
[72]
US election 2020: Five viral vote claims fact-checked - BBC
Nov 9, 2020 · Total number of registered voters: 3,129,000. Total number of votes cast: 3,239,920. This is direct evidence of fraud." False tweet about voting ...Missing: cherry audits
[73]
FBI Releases 2024 Reported Crimes in the Nation Statistics
Aug 5, 2025 · The FBI released detailed data on over 14 million criminal offenses for 2024, reported to the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program by ...Missing: immigration selective high- profile
[74]
More than 13,000 immigrants convicted of homicide are living ...
Sep 28, 2024 · More than 13000 immigrants convicted of homicide in the U.S. or abroad are living outside of immigration in the U.S., according to data ICE ...Missing: selective | Show results with:selective
[75]
'Migrant Crime Wave' Not Supported by Data, Despite High-Profile ...
Mar 6, 2024 · Several well-publicized acts of violence by migrants in New York have unsettled some city leaders, but police statistics do not point toward a surge in crime.Missing: selective FBI
[76]
COVID-19 Vaccine Breakthrough Infections Reported to CDC
May 28, 2021 · * In large, randomized-controlled trials, each vaccine was found to be safe and efficacious in preventing symptomatic, laboratory-confirmed ...Missing: ignoring | Show results with:ignoring
[77]
Evidence for increased breakthrough rates of SARS-CoV-2 variants ...
Jun 14, 2021 · The BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine is highly effective against SARS-CoV-2. However, apprehension exists that variants of concern (VOCs) may evade ...
[78]
What the new poverty data say and do not say - FREOPP
Sep 11, 2025 · Policymakers need a better way to measure poverty that considers the ability of families to provide for themselves.
[79]
Whose News? Class-Biased Economic Reporting in the United States
Apr 12, 2021 · Class-biased news arises here from media actors placing a positive value on features of the economy that are systematically correlated with ...
[80]
Outcome reporting bias | Catalog of Bias - The Catalogue of Bias
Outcome reporting bias can be difficult to detect. One way is to obtain the protocol of a clinical trial or trial registry (via databases such as Clinicaltrials ...Background · Impact · Preventive steps
[81]
Approaches to Assessing and Adjusting for Selective Outcome ...
While publication bias occurs when the entire study is unpublished, selective outcome reporting occurs when trials collect a number of outcomes and, post hoc, ...
[82]
Estimating the extent of selective reporting: An application to ...
Feb 21, 2024 · Selective reporting is the behavioral response of researchers who need to publish to strive for tenure, to acquire competitive research funding ...
[83]
Cherry-Picking in Data Analytics - Institute of Data
Aug 10, 2023 · Employing robust analytical methods and statistical techniques can help identify and mitigate the impact of cherry-picking. By using ...
[84]
Do Preregistration and Preanalysis Plans Reduce p-Hacking and ...
Preregistration alone does not reduce p-hacking or publication bias. However, when preregistration is accompanied by a PAP, both are reduced.
[85]
Full article: The benefits of preregistration and Registered Reports
It enables peers to evaluate whether and to which extent claims were impacted by bias. Registered Reports also reduce publication bias, mitigating current ...
[86]
A study of the impact of data sharing on article citations using journal ...
Dec 18, 2019 · This study estimates the effect of data sharing on the citations of academic articles, using journal policies as a natural experiment.Missing: mandatory effectiveness
[87]
Effect of Impact Factor and Discipline on Journal Data Sharing Policies
Our results suggest that journals with higher Impact Factors are more likely to have data sharing policies; use shared data in peer review; require deposit of ...Missing: mandatory effectiveness
[88]
The file drawer problem in social science survey experiments - PNAS
Clear communication from publication outlets regarding perspectives on null results could further contribute to addressing the file drawer bias.
[89]
Rival scientists are teaming up to break scientific stalemates
Apr 1, 2025 · Adversarial research collaborations are projects in which two (or more) teams with opposing theories, hypotheses, or interpretations of evidence ...
[90]
Analysis of Bayesian posterior significance and effect size indices ...
Apr 22, 2020 · In this paper, we conduct an extensive simulation study to compare common Bayesian significance and effect measures which can be obtained from a posterior ...
[91]
Diagnostic evaluation and Bayesian Updating: Practical solutions to ...
Oct 19, 2020 · This article discusses several practical issues arising with the application of diagnostic principles to theory-based evaluation (e.g. with ...Missing: mitigates | Show results with:mitigates
[92]
Statistical Considerations for Subgroup Analyses - PMC - NIH
Subgroup analyses assess treatment effects in specific patient groups, often defined by demographics or clinical factors. Key considerations include inflated ...
[93]
(PDF) A Systematic Approach for Post Hoc Subgroup Analyses With ...
However, post-hoc subgroup screening still has a mixed reputation due to accusations of cherry picking favorable results for subgroups when "rescuing" a failed ...
[94]
A technocognitive approach to detecting fallacies in climate ...
Technique-based interventions can also address misinformation techniques such as paltering or cherry picking which use factual statements to mislead by ...
[95]
Cherry Picking Fallacy (In a Social Media Debate) [closed]
Mar 5, 2015 · I'm hoping to get answers from both atheist- and believer-philosophers (or students of philosophy) so that I could formulate an coherent opinion ...What's the Name of this Debating/Rhetorical Strategy?Name of the argument fallacy when someone only attempts to refute ...More results from philosophy.stackexchange.comMissing: validity accusations
[96]
A systematic review on media bias detection - ScienceDirect.com
Mar 1, 2024 · We present a systematic review of the literature related to media bias detection, in order to characterize and classify the different types of media bias.