Talk:White hat bias

POV
The article only shows Allison and Cope's side (funded by the food and beverage industry), who are basically accusing everyone who is not funded by the industry to be either in bad faith or of suffering of publication bias. Subsequent meta- and meta-meta-studies, such as the two I linked on "further reading", fail to show any kind of white hat bias. Ihaveacatonmydesk (talk) 00:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The paper also seems to ignore numerous meta-studies demonstrating the effect of funding bias, instead reaching an opposite conclusion that industry-funded papers are less likely to show results contrary to the business interests of the sponsors.
 * The topic seems notable enough, with mainstream publications covering the subject. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

The controversy part is also interesting. Have you seen it? The major part of the article says that small effect reports are silenced (by publishers). It says that publishers are interested only in publishing significant effects. The controversy pushes the accusation further, saying that publishers misreported the Allison-Cope discovery who discovered this fact. You see, the dishonest publishers create a bad image of the industry. The industry is fair reporting everything whereas publishers downplay the fair low effects. But, as I understand, the low effect size is exactly what industry is going to hide. They do not want to show that there is a high correlation between sweet drinks and obesity. You see how Allison-Cope turn everything upside down? Probably, I have just got it wrong. --Javalenok (talk) 11:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)