1{"text": "{\"genre\":\"survey_or_address\",\"subfield\":\"financial_econometrics\",\"subfield_secondary\":\"research methodology / meta-science of publication bias in asset pricing\",\"primary_method\":\"other\",\"identification\":{\"estimand\":\"not applicable (methodological address); the target quantity is the posterior probability that the null is true given a reported p-value and prior odds\",\"strategy\":\"not applicable; conceptual argument, a hypothetical ticker-symbol data-mining example, and Bayesian conversion of p-values using minimum Bayes factors\",\"key_assumptions\":[\"prior odds on the null vs. alternative can be specified from economic plausibility\",\"minimum Bayes factor bounds the evidence against the null\"],\"threats_addressed\":[\"multiple testing\",\"p-hacking\",\"publication bias / file drawer effect\",\"low prior probability of true effects (rare incidence)\"],\"causal_language_strength\":2,\"uses_causal_claim\":false},\"abstract_moves\":{\"question\":{\"present\":true,\"sentence_index\":4},\"gap\":{\"present\":true,\"sentence_index\":3},\"method\":{\"present\":true,\"sentence_index\":5},\"results\":{\"present\":true,\"sentence_index\":1},\"magnitude\":{\"present\":false,\"sentence_index\":-1},\"contribution\":{\"present\":true,\"sentence_index\":6}},\"introduction\":{\"moves\":[{\"paragraph_index\":0,\"move\":\"motivation\"},{\"paragraph_index\":0,\"move\":\"tension_or_puzzle\"},{\"paragraph_index\":1,\"move\":\"mechanism_or_theory_sketch\"},{\"paragraph_index\":2,\"move\":\"related_literature_positioning\"},{\"paragraph_index\":2,\"move\":\"policy_or_broader_implication\"},{\"paragraph_index\":2,\"move\":\"roadmap\"}],\"contribution_paragraph_index\":2,\"contribution_types\":[\"new_method\",\"synthesis\"],\"roadmap_present\":true,\"literature_positioning_location\":\"both\"},\"section_roles\":[{\"idx\":0,\"role\":\"introduction\"},{\"idx\":1,\"role\":\"literature\"},{\"idx\":2,\"role\":\"other\"},{\"idx\":3,\"role\":\"other\"},{\"idx\":4,\"role\":\"literature\"},{\"idx\":5,\"role\":\"theory\"},{\"idx\":6,\"role\":\"other\"},{\"idx\":7,\"role\":\"theory\"},{\"idx\":8,\"role\":\"theory\"},{\"idx\":9,\"role\":\"theory\"},{\"idx\":10,\"role\":\"theory\"},{\"idx\":11,\"role\":\"robustness\"},{\"idx\":12,\"role\":\"other\"},{\"idx\":13,\"role\":\"conclusion\"}],\"results_presentation\":{\"economic_significance_discussed\":false,\"statistical_significance_language\":\"mixed\",\"magnitude_statements_in_intro\":true},\"robustness\":{\"location\":\"none_seen\",\"types\":[]},\"tables\":{\"convention_notes\":\"Tables are illustrative computation grids. Rows are significance levels or z-scores/p-values, and columns are prior odds labeled from 'long shot' to 'even odds'. Notes define the MBF and SD-MBF formulas. One table re-expresses p-values from published papers as Bayesianized p-values.\",\"units_stated_in_notes\":true,\"standard_errors_description\":\"none\"},\"figures\":{\"uncertainty_shown\":\"no\"},\"conclusion\":{\"bounded_claims\":true,\"policy_implications\":true,\"open_questions\":true,\"restates_contribution\":false},\"hedging\":{\"level\":\"moderate\",\"typical_devices\":[\"modal verbs (may, likely)\",\"framing as a conversation starter\",\"disclaimer that past research quality is high\",\"extended quotations from authorities (Hubble, Russell)\"]},\"claim_evidence\":[{\"claim\":\"Searching many specifications can produce a seemingly significant factor from economically meaningless sorting such as ticker letters.\",\"evidence_type\":\"descriptive_statistic\",\"evidence_ref\":\"Introduction ticker example (t=3.23)\"},{\"claim\":\"Published factor t-statistics cluster just above conventional thresholds, consistent with publication bias.\",\"evidence_type\":\"figure\",\"evidence_ref\":\"Figure 1, Figure 6 (HLZ 2016)\"},{\"claim\":\"Economics and business publish supportive results at rates close to psychology and above the physical sciences.\",\"evidence_type\":\"figure\",\"evidence_ref\":\"Figure 2 (Fanelli 2010)\"},{\"claim\":\"The share of positive results has risen over time across sciences.\",\"evidence_type\":\"figure\",\"evidence_ref\":\"Figure 3 (Fanelli 2012)\"},{\"claim\":\"With low prior odds, even strict significance thresholds leave a high probability that the null is true.\",\"evidence_type\":\"table\",\"evidence_ref\":\"Table I, Table II\"},{\"claim\":\"The required t-statistic threshold depends on the prior plausibility of the hypothesis.\",\"evidence_type\":\"table\",\"evidence_ref\":\"Table III\"},{\"claim\":\"Reported p-values in published factor papers translate into varied Bayesianized p-values depending on prior odds.\",\"evidence_type\":\"table\",\"evidence_ref\":\"Table IV\"}],\"structural_summary\":\"A presidential address that opens with a provocative hypothetical data-mining example and then frames the problem as an agency conflict between editors and authors. It brings in meta-scientific evidence from other fields and reviews what p-values mean and their limitations. It then discusses p-hacking and the low base rates of true effects, and makes the case for Bayesian reasoning. As a compromise, it proposes minimum Bayes factors and illustrates them with tables and applications to published papers. It notes limitations, closes with research-culture recommendations, and ends with a reflective, quotation-rich conclusion.\",\"writing_profile_keywords\":[\"presidential address\",\"first-person voice\",\"meta-science\",\"p-hacking\",\"Bayesian inference\",\"minimum Bayes factor\",\"publication bias\",\"normative recommendations\",\"illustrative examples\"],\"confidence\":0.8,\"notes\":\"This is not an empirical paper with identification. The figures are mostly reproduced from other studies. Section headings idx 2–4 are artifacts of figure panel labels; idx 4 continues the discussion of Fanelli's explanations. Robustness checks are not applicable, and Section VIII discusses limitations of the method rather than reporting robustness tests.\"}", "json": {"genre": "survey_or_address", "subfield": "financial_econometrics", "subfield_secondary": "research methodology / meta-science of publication bias in asset pricing", "primary_method": "other", "identification": {"estimand": "not applicable (methodological address); the target quantity is the posterior probability that the null is true given a reported p-value and prior odds", "strategy": "not applicable; conceptual argument, a hypothetical ticker-symbol data-mining example, and Bayesian conversion of p-values using minimum Bayes factors", "key_assumptions": ["prior odds on the null vs. alternative can be specified from economic plausibility", "minimum Bayes factor bounds the evidence against the null"], "threats_addressed": ["multiple testing", "p-hacking", "publication bias / file drawer effect", "low prior probability of true effects (rare incidence)"], "causal_language_strength": 2, "uses_causal_claim": false}, "abstract_moves": {"question": {"present": true, "sentence_index": 4}, "gap": {"present": true, "sentence_index": 3}, "method": {"present": true, "sentence_index": 5}, "results": {"present": true, "sentence_index": 1}, "magnitude": {"present": false, "sentence_index": -1}, "contribution": {"present": true, "sentence_index": 6}}, "introduction": {"moves": [{"paragraph_index": 0, "move": "motivation"}, {"paragraph_index": 0, "move": "tension_or_puzzle"}, {"paragraph_index": 1, "move": "mechanism_or_theory_sketch"}, {"paragraph_index": 2, "move": "related_literature_positioning"}, {"paragraph_index": 2, "move": "policy_or_broader_implication"}, {"paragraph_index": 2, "move": "roadmap"}], "contribution_paragraph_index": 2, "contribution_types": ["new_method", "synthesis"], "roadmap_present": true, "literature_positioning_location": "both"}, "section_roles": [{"idx": 0, "role": "introduction"}, {"idx": 1, "role": "literature"}, {"idx": 2, "role": "other"}, {"idx": 3, "role": "other"}, {"idx": 4, "role": "literature"}, {"idx": 5, "role": "theory"}, {"idx": 6, "role": "other"}, {"idx": 7, "role": "theory"}, {"idx": 8, "role": "theory"}, {"idx": 9, "role": "theory"}, {"idx": 10, "role": "theory"}, {"idx": 11, "role": "robustness"}, {"idx": 12, "role": "other"}, {"idx": 13, "role": "conclusion"}], "results_presentation": {"economic_significance_discussed": false, "statistical_significance_language": "mixed", "magnitude_statements_in_intro": true}, "robustness": {"location": "none_seen", "types": []}, "tables": {"convention_notes": "Tables are illustrative computation grids. Rows are significance levels or z-scores/p-values, and columns are prior odds labeled from 'long shot' to 'even odds'. Notes define the MBF and SD-MBF formulas. One table re-expresses p-values from published papers as Bayesianized p-values.", "units_stated_in_notes": true, "standard_errors_description": "none"}, "figures": {"uncertainty_shown": "no"}, "conclusion": {"bounded_claims": true, "policy_implications": true, "open_questions": true, "restates_contribution": false}, "hedging": {"level": "moderate", "typical_devices": ["modal verbs (may, likely)", "framing as a conversation starter", "disclaimer that past research quality is high", "extended quotations from authorities (Hubble, Russell)"]}, "claim_evidence": [{"claim": "Searching many specifications can produce a seemingly significant factor from economically meaningless sorting such as ticker letters.", "evidence_type": "descriptive_statistic", "evidence_ref": "Introduction ticker example (t=3.23)"}, {"claim": "Published factor t-statistics cluster just above conventional thresholds, consistent with publication bias.", "evidence_type": "figure", "evidence_ref": "Figure 1, Figure 6 (HLZ 2016)"}, {"claim": "Economics and business publish supportive results at rates close to psychology and above the physical sciences.", "evidence_type": "figure", "evidence_ref": "Figure 2 (Fanelli 2010)"}, {"claim": "The share of positive results has risen over time across sciences.", "evidence_type": "figure", "evidence_ref": "Figure 3 (Fanelli 2012)"}, {"claim": "With low prior odds, even strict significance thresholds leave a high probability that the null is true.", "evidence_type": "table", "evidence_ref": "Table I, Table II"}, {"claim": "The required t-statistic threshold depends on the prior plausibility of the hypothesis.", "evidence_type": "table", "evidence_ref": "Table III"}, {"claim": "Reported p-values in published factor papers translate into varied Bayesianized p-values depending on prior odds.", "evidence_type": "table", "evidence_ref": "Table IV"}], "structural_summary": "A presidential address that opens with a provocative hypothetical data-mining example and then frames the problem as an agency conflict between editors and authors. It brings in meta-scientific evidence from other fields and reviews what p-values mean and their limitations. It then discusses p-hacking and the low base rates of true effects, and makes the case for Bayesian reasoning. As a compromise, it proposes minimum Bayes factors and illustrates them with tables and applications to published papers. It notes limitations, closes with research-culture recommendations, and ends with a reflective, quotation-rich conclusion.", "writing_profile_keywords": ["presidential address", "first-person voice", "meta-science", "p-hacking", "Bayesian inference", "minimum Bayes factor", "publication bias", "normative recommendations", "illustrative examples"], "confidence": 0.8, "notes": "This is not an empirical paper with identification. The figures are mostly reproduced from other studies. Section headings idx 2–4 are artifacts of figure panel labels; idx 4 continues the discussion of Fanelli's explanations. Robustness checks are not applicable, and Section VIII discusses limitations of the method rather than reporting robustness tests."}, "model": "claude-opus-5-5", "stop_reason": "end_turn", "latency_s": 17.36, "usage": {"input": 7476, "output": 2100, "cache_read": 3968, "cache_write": 0}, "cost_usd": 0.072698, "request_id": "req_011CggpcpmpCGxdqD1gXthDB", "cached": false, "ts": "2026-11-03T22:57:47+00:00", "effort": "medium"}