A protocol for a systematic review on the impact of unpublished studies and studies published in the gray literature in meta-analyses.

BACKGROUND: Meta-analyses are particularly vulnerable to the effects of publication bias. Despite methodologists' best efforts to locate all evidence for a given topic the most comprehensive searches are likely to miss unpublished studies and studies that are published in the gray literature only. If the results of the missing studies differ systematically from the published ones, a meta-analysis will be biased with an inaccurate assessment of the intervention's effects.As part of the OPEN project (http://www.open-project.eu) we will conduct a systematic review with the following objectives:â-ª To assess the impact of studies that are not published or published in the gray literature on pooled effect estimates in meta-analyses (quantitative measure).â-ª To assess whether the inclusion of unpublished studies or studies published in the gray literature leads to different conclusions in meta-analyses (qualitative measure). METHODS/DESIGN: Inclusion criteria: Methodological research projects of a cohort of meta-analyses which compare the effect of the inclusion or exclusion of unpublished studies or studies published in the gray literature.Literature search: To identify relevant research projects we will conduct electronic searches in Medline, Embase and The Cochrane Library; check reference lists; and contact experts.Outcomes: 1) The extent to which the effect estimate in a meta-analyses changes with the inclusion or exclusion of studies that were not published or published in the gray literature; and 2) the extent to which the inclusion of unpublished studies impacts the meta-analyses' conclusions.Data collection: Information will be collected on the area of health care; the number of meta-analyses included in the methodological research project; the number of studies included in the meta-analyses; the number of study participants; the number and type of unpublished studies; studies published in the gray literature and published studies; the sources used to retrieve studies that are unpublished, published in the gray literature, or commercially published; and the validity of the methodological research project.Data synthesis: Data synthesis will involve descriptive and statistical summaries of the findings of the included methodological research projects. DISCUSSION: Results are expected to be publicly available in the middle of 2013.

Responses of silver birch saplings to low soil temperature

Abstract

Rhétorique et cognition : perspectives théoriques et stratégies persuasives

D'une certaine manière, la rhétorique est un art cognitif. L'art de discourir en situation concrète dans l'espoir de faire adhérer l'auditoire à une thèse suppose une forte aptitude cognitive: celle de se représenter la façon dont l'auditoire lui-même se représente une situation rhétorique. Or, à partir du moment où agir sur les représentations d'autrui est facilité par des techniques rhétoriques ou sophistiques, la question de la tromperie verbale s'est immiscée dans des affaires de régulation sociale et, avec elle, des enjeux tant de crédibilité que de crédulité. Dans le cadre démocratique rendant encore plus aiguë une forme de dépendance à l'information d'autrui, la nécessité de croire tout comme la possibilité d'être leurré mettent à l'épreuve tant le fonctionnement social de la Cité que l'évaluation des informations et de leurs auteurs. Le but des contributions de cet ouvrage n'est pas de dénoncer les effets de certains schèmes argumentatifs que d'aucuns jugeraient fallacieux ni d'ajouter une couche nouvelle aux critiques des sophismes, mais d'étudier leur fonctionnement et leurs effets cognitifs hic et nunc. Quels sont les mécanismes langagiers et cognitifs qui expliquent la «performance» des arguments réputés fallacieux? Comment fonctionnent les stratégies rhétoriques à l'intersection entre cognition, sciences du langage et société? Cet ouvrage, issu du colloque Communication et Cognition: manipulation, persuasion et biais dans le langage, tenu à Neuchâtel du 26 au 28 janvier 2011, propose plusieurs propositions originales ou hypothèses stimulantes dans l'espoir qu'elles inspireront tant les chercheurs spécialisés en rhétorique et sciences du langage à aller voir du côté de la psychologie cognitive que les spécialistes de ce domaine à mettre en évidence la rhétoricité de leurs recherches. English version: In a way, rhetoric is a cognitive art. The art of speaking in concrete situations in the hope of gaining the audience's consent on a given issue requires the operation of a cognitive ability: that of being able to represent the way an audience represents itself a rhetorical situation. Nonetheless, once we consider that rhetorical or sophistic techniques influence people's representations, verbal deception becomes a matter of social regulation, together with issues of credibility and credulity. In a democratic context fostering a form of dependence towards other people's information, the necessity of believing everything and the possibility of being duped are challenges for both the social management of the City and the evaluation of information and of its sources. The contribution of the chapters of this volume is neither to be found in the condemnation of the fallacious effects of specific argument schemes nor in the addition of yet another layer to fallacy criticism, but in the study of how fallacies work, hic et nunc. What are the linguistic and cognitive mechanisms at play behind the "performance" of fallacious arguments? How do rhetorical strategies work at the interface of cognition, language science and society? This book gathers papers that were presented during the international conference Communication & Cognition: manipulation, persuasion and biases in language, held at the University of Neuchâtel in January 2011. A number of original proposals and stimulating hypotheses emerge from them: we hope that these will inspire researchers in the language sciences who specialise in rhetoric to take on board cognitive scientific insights but also researchers in cognitive science to engage with the rhetoricity of their own research.