published vs unpublished dissertation

The Difference Between a Published & Unpublished Dissertation

How to Locate PhD Dissertations

A dissertation is the main element in completion of a Ph.D. The central element of a doctoral dissertation, and the quality that differentiates it from a master's thesis or an undergraduate thesis, is that it must make an original contribution to its field, usually using primary research. The structure and content of a completed doctoral dissertation is often very different from the structure required for articles or books that are based on it.

Unpublished Dissertations

When a Ph.D. candidate completes her dissertation, this usually results in three or four copies: one each for the candidate, the dissertation supervisor, the university library and sometimes an archive. Unless a dissertation is subsequently published, these are the only copies that are ever created. What this means in practical terms is that unpublished dissertations are almost never widely read. The vast majority of dissertations serve their purpose of gaining a Ph.D. for their author and then fade into obscurity. If you write a dissertation that you want to have an impact, you will need to revise it and publish it in some form.

One of the easiest options for getting your research into published form is to revise a single chapter into an article for a peer-reviewed journal in your field. The difference between this article and an unpublished dissertation is clear: The article is present in a journal that is printed in thousands of copies and distributed to influential academics around the world. In most cases, the editors of the journal will want the form of the dissertation chapter reworked to some extent to make it more accessible to readers who are probably not experts in that particular subject matter.

Motivated dissertation authors often seek to have their dissertations published in book form. As with journal articles, books that are based on dissertations need to be reworked. This usually takes the form of downplaying the methodology and literature-review sections, cutting down on the density of footnotes and references and generally making the text more readable to non-specialists. A published book can get your name out in your academic field and to the world in general. Having a book and some published articles in your field will be helpful to you in advancing your academic career. Within academia, an unpublished dissertation is really nothing more than a prerequisite.

Online Publishing

The Internet has opened up tremendous new opportunities for academic publishing. While having your work accessible online doesn't carry the same weight with hiring committees as an article in a peer-reviewed journal, or better yet a book, it is an effective way to make yourself and your work known, as long as you get it published in the right places. Making contacts through online publishing can be an effective stepping stone toward breaking into journals and book publishing. It's also a useful way to get feedback from other academics about your work.

Related Articles

Referencing Your Own Knowledge in APA Format

How to write a humanities paper

How to Write a Dissertation Summary

Difference Between College-Level and Casual Writing?

The Purpose of a PhD

How to Do a Summary of a News Article

How to find credible web sources for a research paper.

How to Write a Microbiology Research Proposal

• University of California Berkeley/Graduate Division: Publishing Your Dissertation

Jagg Xaxx has been writing since 1983. His primary areas of writing include surrealism, Buddhist iconography and environmental issues. Xaxx worked as a cabinetmaker for 12 years, as well as building and renovating several houses. Xaxx holds a Doctor of Philosophy in art history from the University of Manchester in the U.K.

Citation Help for APA, 7th Edition: Master's Thesis, Dissertation, or Capstone Project

• Books & Ebooks
• Book Chapter & Ebook Chapter
• Conference Presentations
• Course Resources (PowerPoint, Handouts, etc.)
• Encyclopedia
• Journal Article
• Legal Materials
• Magazine Article
• Master's Thesis, Dissertation, or Capstone Project
• Movies & Streaming Video
• Newspaper Article
• Personal Communication (email, interviews, lectures, course materials, etc.)
• Webpages & Websites
• Formatting Your Paper
• In-text Citations
• Ethically Use Sources

Introduction

When creating references for dissertations, theses, and projects, you will need to determine the correct reference type to follow. Dissertations, theses, and projects are generally divided into two separate groups; those that are published and those that are unpublished.

In most cases, unpublished projects are those that are in print and available only from the degree-granting institution. On the other hand, published projects are those that are available in a database, a university archive, or a personal website. 

Variations - URLs?

Some URLs may be long and complicated. APA 7th edition allows the use of shorter URLs. Shortened URLs can be created using any URL shortener service; however, if you choose to shorten the URL, you must double-check that the URL is functioning and brings the reader to the correct website. 

Common URL Shortner websites include:

More Information

For more information about URLs, see Section 9.36 on page 300 of APA Manual, 7th edition. 

NOTE:  Check your instructor's preference about using short URLs. Some instructors may want the full URL. 

Variations - DOIs?

Some DOIs may be long and complicated. APA 7th edition allows the use of shorter DOI numbers. Shortened DOIs can be located at the International DOI Foundations, shortDOI Service . 

More Information:

For more information about DOIs, see Section 9.36 on page 300 of APA Manual, 7th edition. 

NOTE: Check your instructor's preference for using short DOIs. Some instructors may want the full DOI. 

Variations - Live Hyperlinks?

Should my urls be live.

It depends. When adding URLs to a paper or other work, first, be sure to include the full hyperlink. This includes the http:// or the https://. Additionally, consider where and how the paper or work will be published or read. If the work will only be read in print or as a Word doc or Google Doc, then the URLs should not be live (i.e., they are not blue or underlined). However, if the work will be published or read online, then APA advises to include live URLs. This would allow the reader to click on a link and go to the source.   

For more information, see Section 9.35 on pages 299-300 of the APA Manual, 7th edition. 

NOTE: Check your instructor's preference about using live URLs. Some instructors may not want you to use live URLs. 

Print Master's Thesis, Dissertation, or Project

When creating references for dissertations, theses, and projects, you will need to determine the correct reference type to follow. Dissertations, theses, and projects are generally divided into two separate groups; those that are published and those that are unpublished. In most cases, unpublished projects are those that are in print and available only from the degree-granting institution. 

Panasuk, K. N. (2008). What variables appear to work in stress management programs in the workplace and how effective are

these  programs  [Unpublished master’s final project]? The College of St. Scholastica.

Author: Panasuk, K. N.

Begin the reference with the author's last name first. then, add the initials for the first and middle names (if the middle name or middle initial is provided). add a period after each initial, and if there is a middle initial, add a space between the initials., year of publication: (2008)..

Next, in parentheses, list the year of publication, which appears on the title page or the title verso page (back side of title page). Follow the parentheses with a period.   

Title & Subtitle of the Book: What variables appear to work in stress management programs in the workplace and how effective are these programs [Unpublished master's final project]?

Next, add the title and subtitle of the master's thesis, dissertation, final applied project, or capstone. The title and subtitle are separated by a colon. Capitalize only the first word of the title and subtitle and all proper nouns.  Italicize the title and subtitle. Do not add a period immediately after the title. Instead, add brackets with the type of project (Master's project, doctoral dissertation, etc.) you are referencing. Before the type of project add "Unpublished". When choosing wording to describe the project, use the language the degree-granting institution uses to describe the project (e.g., Master's thesis, Doctoral dissertation, Final Applied Project, Capstone Project, Clinical Project, etc.). Add a period after the brackets. If the title has a question mark or exclamation mark, replace the period after the brackets with the proper punctuation mark used in the title.   

Source Information: The College of St. Scholastica.

Complete the reference with the source information, which is the full name of the college or university awarding the degree. add a period after the institution's name.  more information:.

For more information about master's theses, dissertations, or capstone projects, Section 10.6 on pages 333-334 in the APA Manual, 7th edition.

Parenthetical Citation Example:

 (Panasuk, 2008)

Narrative Citation Example:

Panasuk (2008) identified ...

For more information about author format within parenthetical and narrative citations, see Section 8.17 and Table 8.1 on page 266 of the APA Manual, 7th edition. 

Master's Thesis Published in a Commercial Database (like ProQuest Dissertations & Theses)

When creating references for dissertations, theses, and projects, you will need to determine the correct reference type to follow. Dissertations, theses, and projects are generally divided into two separate groups; those that are published and those that are unpublished. In most cases, published projects are those that are available in a database, a university archive, or a personal website. 

Skallet, S. (2016). Environmental approval duration estimating model for improved linear energy construction project schedules  (Publication No.

10125148)  [Master's capstone project, The College of St. Scholastica]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. 

Author: Skallet, S.

Begin the reference with the author's last name first. then, add the initials for the author's first and middle names (if a middle name or middle initial is provided). add a period after each initial, and if there is a middle initial, add a space between the initials.     year of publication: (2016)..

Next, in parentheses, add the year of publication, which appears on the title page or the title page verso (back side of title page). Follow the parentheses with a period.   

Title & Subtitle of the Book:  Environmental approval duration estimating model for improved linear energy construction project schedules  (Publication No. 10125148) [Master's capstone project, The College of St. Scholastica].

Next, add the title and subtitle (if there is a subtitle) of the capstone, final applied project, thesis, or dissertation. Separate the title and subtitle with a colon. Capitalize only the first word of the title and subtitle and all proper nouns. Italicize the title. Do NOT add a period after the title.

After the title, in parentheses, add the publication number (normally found in the record of the project within ProQuest). Before the publication number put "Publication No." Do NOT add a period after the parentheses. 

After the publication number, add brackets with the type of project (Master's thesis, Master's capstone project, doctoral dissertation, etc.) you are referencing. Use the language described by the degree-granting institution to describe the project. Then, add a comma and the name of the institution. Add a period after the brackets.      

Source Information: ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. 

Complete the reference with the commercial database where you found the masters thesis/project. end with a period.    more information:  .

For more information on Master's Theses/Projects, see Section 10.6 on pages 333-334 in the APA Manual, 7th edition.

 (Skallet, 2016)

Skallet (2016) argued ...

Dissertation Published Online

Adame, A. (2019). Fully immersed, fully present: Examining the user experience through the multimodal presence scale and virtual reality gaming

variables [Master's thesis, California State University San Bernardino]. CSUSB ScholarWorks Electronic Theses, Projects, &

Dissertations.  https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/etd/918/

Author: Adame, A. 

Begin the reference with the author's last name first. Then, add the initials of the author's first and middle names (if a middle name or middle initial is provided). Add a period after each initial, and if there is a middle initial, add a space between the initials. 

Year of Publication: (2019). 

Next, in parentheses, add the year of publication, which appears on the title page or the title verso page (back side of the title page). Follow the parentheses with a period. 

Title & Subtitle of the Book: Fully immersed, fully present: Examining the user experience through the multimodal presence scale and virtual reality gaming variables [Master's thesis, California State University San Bernardino]. 

Next, add the title and subtitle (if there a subtitle present) of the thesis or project. Separate the title and subtitle with a colon. Capitalize only the first word of the title and subtitle as well as proper nouns. Italicize the title and subtitle. Do NOT add a period after the title. Instead, after the title, add brackets with the type of project (Master's thesis, doctoral dissertation, etc.) you are referencing. Use the language described by the degree-granting institution to describe the project. Then, add a comma and the name of the institution. Add a period after the brackets.   

Source Information: CSUSB ScholarWorks Electronic Theses, Projects, & Dissertations.  https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/etd/918/

Complete the reference with the name of the website or archive where you found the project. After the name of the website or archive, add a period. Then, add the URL to the project. 

For more information about Master's Theses or Projects, see Section 10.6 on page 333 and example 66 on page 334 in the APA Manual, 7th edition. 

(Adame, 2019)

Adame (2019) distinguished between ...

• << Previous: Magazine Article
• Next: Movies & Streaming Video >>
• Last Updated: Feb 19, 2024 2:51 PM
• URL: https://libguides.css.edu/APA7thEd

APA 7th edition - Citations: Theses & Dissertations

• In-Text Citations
• Reference List
• Artificial Intelligence (AI)
• Course Materials
• Dictionaries, Encyclopedias, Reference Works
• Government Resources
• Indigenous Knowledge
• Legal Citation
• Media (Audio & Visual)
• Personal Communication (emails, etc)
• Reports, Conferences, Fact Sheets and more
• Social Media
• Statistics and Data Sets

Theses & Dissertations

• Tables, Figures and Images
• Other Source Types
• RefWorks This link opens in a new window
• Formatting Your Paper This link opens in a new window

Published vs. unpublished

Citations for dissertations and theses reorganize elements depending on whether they are published or unpublished.

• A dissertation or thesis is considered published when it is available through a database, institutional repository, or archive
• e.g. [Master's thesis, University of British Columbia] or [Doctoral dissertation, Simon Fraser University]
• Include the URL if the URL will work for readers, or else end the citation with the name of the database, repository, or archive 

General format - published

Reference List 

AuthorLastName, A. A. (Date). Title of dissertation or thesis (Publication No. ## - if available) [Document type, institution name]. Publisher. http://www.website.com/webpage

(AuthorLastName, Year)

• Unpublished
• An unpublished dissertation or thesis includes the name of the university as the source.
• A URL is generally not included as an unpublished document is assumed to be in print or a digital document unavailable publicly.
• If available in a database or repository/archive, treat as published.

General format - unpublished

AuthorLastName, A. A. (Date). Title of dissertation or thesis (Publication No. ## - if available) [Unpublished document type]. Institution Name. http://www.website.com/webpage

1. Published

Hossain, M. A. (2018). What do police recruits identify as strategies to deal with their triggers/biases to deliver fair and impartial policing? [Capstone Project, Justice Institute of British Columbia]. The Vault. https://jibc.arcabc.ca/islandora/object/jibc%3A2380?solr_nav%5Bid%5D=16b067104b80bcb271bb&solr_nav%5Bpage%5D=0&solr_nav%5Boffset%5D=0

(Hossain, 2018)

Ferguson, J. (2010). Queer Japanese cinema: A rich and diverse cultural history's challenge to hegemonic ideologies of gender and sexuality (Publication No. MR82331) [Master's thesis, University of British Columbia]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.

(Ferguson, 2010)

2. Unpublished

Smith, I. (2020). Effects of library instruction on college students' citation practices [Unpublished undergraduate thesis]. Okanagan College.

(Smith, 2020)

• << Previous: Statistics and Data Sets
• Next: Tables, Figures and Images >>
• Last Updated: Feb 16, 2024 11:08 AM
• URL: https://libguides.jibc.ca/apa

• Research Guides
• A-Z Database List
• Library Home

APA 7th Edition Citation Guide

• Formatting Essays
• Paraphrase and Summary
• Bibliographic Citations
• Sources with Multiple Authors
• Sources with No Author, Date, Title or Page Numbers
• Journal Articles
• Magazine and Newspaper Articles
• Reference Articles, Encyclopedia and Dictionary Entries
• Books and eBooks
• Conference Proceedings and Presentations
• Dissertations and Theses

Published Dissertation or Thesis

Unpublished dissertation or thesis.

• Films, Video and Audio
• Government Documents, Non-Profit and Corporate Reports
• Images and Advertisements
• Personal Communications (E-mails, Interviews, and etc.)
• Religious Texts
• Social Media
• Statutes, Legal Documents and the Constitution
• Avoiding Plagiarism

Sara Carman , Librarian

Call: 320-629-5169

Laurie Jorgensen , Library Technologist

Call: 320-629-5145

24/7 Chat help is available!

Note : Theses and dissertations are considered "published" if you located them either in a library database (e.g. ProQuest) or online in an institutional repository.  They are considered "unpublished" if you located them in a library's print collection of theses and dissertations completed by students at that university.

Thesis or Dissertation Published in a Library Database

Thesis or Dissertation Published in an Institutional Repository

• << Previous: Conference Proceedings and Presentations
• Next: Films, Video and Audio >>
• Last Updated: Feb 20, 2024 5:50 PM
• URL: https://pine.libguides.com/APA7Guide

Copyright Alliance

• Who We Represent
• Community Partners
• Statements to Congress
• Agency and Other Filings
• Amicus Briefs
• Position Papers
• Copyright Act
• Copyright Regulations
• Copyright Compendium
• Copyright Cases
• Copyright Legislation
• Government Reports
• Congressional Hearings
• International Agreements
• Find a Copyright Attorney
• Creator Assistance Directory
• Find a Copyright Owner
• Copyright Facts by State
• Report Piracy
• Jobs in Copyright
• IPDC Program
• Press Releases
• Media Center
• Trending Topics
• Event Calendar
• Copyright Law Explained
• AI and Copyright
• CCB Explained
• Copyright Law by Industry
• Copyright Courses
• Join the Alliance
• Creator Voices
• Copyright Alliance Policy Alert
• AI Copyright Alert

What is the difference between “Published” vs. “Unpublished” works, why does it matter, and how does the difference relate to Online vs. Print publishing?

U.S. Copyright Law defines publication as:

“the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not itself constitute publication.”

Publication under the first part of the definition is rather straightforward. Publication under the second part is a bit more complicated. Generally, publication occurs on the date on which copies of the work are first made available to the public. Unpublished works are those which have not been distributed in any manner.

Although prior to 1978, copyright protection generally was available only for published works, such protection is now available for published as well as unpublished works.

Whether a work is published or unpublished still matters for certain reasons. For example:

• works that are published in the United States are subject to mandatory deposit in the Library of Congress;
• unpublished works are eligible for protection without regard to the nationality or where the author lives;
• certain limitations on the rights of a copyright owner are applicable only to published works; and
• the duration of protection for works made for hire may be determined by the date of publication.

For more information, see Distinction Between Published and Unpublished Works.

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer

The Professor Is In

Guidance for all things PhD: Graduate School, Job Market and Careers

The Perils of Publishing Your Dissertation Online

By Karen Kelsky | August 24, 2011

[July 2019 Update below by Jacqueline Barlow, Open Access Officer at The University of Winchester in Winchester, Hampshire, United Kingdom–please read]

Today we are honored to have a guest post by Kathryn Hume, Edwin Erle Sparks Professor of English at Penn State University and author of Surviving Your Academic Job Hunt: Advice for Humanities PhDs (revised edition, 2010).

I got in touch with Kathryn Hume initially to send her a fan email!  I really like her book and will be reviewing it here on the blog soon.  When I invited her to consider writing a guest post, she immediately responded with an idea to write about ProQuest, and the impact that electronic dissertation storage is having on the rules of publishing, and potentially on your tenure case.  Thank you, Professor Hume, for sharing your insights.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Once upon a time, dissertations were “available” through UMI as microfilm or through Interlibrary Loan as bound copies. In either case, you knew that you were not supposed to quote from the document or use its ideas without permission from the author. In the case of a hardbound copy, the libraries had records of the borrowers, so misappropriation could, in theory, be traced. Since you knew the material was unusable without permission, you felt free to ignore dissertations, except to make sure that a recent one was not too similar to the one that you hoped to write, lest it get published before yours and scoop you. Yes, such documents were technically “available,” but they were definitely not published or easily consultable.

Electronic dissertation storage changes the rules. Universities have enthusiastically assumed that a thesis online is just a faster and handier form of microfilm, and dissertation supervisors have assumed that since they put their theses on microfilm, you should put yours on ProQuest. They are wrong. Once available through any form of open access, be it ProQuest or a university library’s public access materials, that dissertation is functionally published, though this does not constitute refereed publication. Without the quality control implied by refereeing, ProQuest “publication” will not count for tenure.  Furthermore, its being there may interfere with your landing a revised version at a reputable press. You could ruin your chances of getting tenure if your thesis is freely available.

In the Chronicle of Higher Education ( http://chronicle.com/article/From-Dissertation-to-Book/127677/ ), Leonard Cassuto sums up a round table discussion among six academic publishers as follows:

Don’t make your dissertation available online. Book editors seem unanimous on that point for obvious reasons. Many university libraries routinely add dissertations to their electronic holdings. If yours does, then opt out. If your thesis is already online, then have it taken down. Information may want to be free, as the earliest hacker generation first avowed, but if it’s free, then you can’t expect a publisher to pay for it, even in a later version.

At present, this is a disaster waiting to happen rather than a battlefield covered with the bodies of humanists denied tenure because presses would not even look at their manuscripts, but warning signals are going up. I have heard of two commercial-academic presses and one university press that insisted the dissertation be removed from ProQuest before they would consider it. I have also learned of a major journal’s response to the issue. A job hunter at my school took a chapter from his recently defended dissertation and turned it into an article. He sent it off and the journal wrote back to ask whether this was from a chapter in a thesis on ProQuest; if so, they would not look at it because they considered it already published. The same could happen to your article or book manuscript.

Numerous universities have made putting dissertations on ProQuest a requirement. Others will permit you to block that process and renew the block, at least for a while. Whenever that protection runs out, though, ProQuest or the library or both will make the piece available. Your university may argue that a state institution receives public money, so part of its mission is to make its research available to that same public. Fair enough, but you must still try to ensure that your university can and will remove a dissertation from open access if asked. Refusal to create that mechanism could destroy the careers of its humanities PhDs.

This may prove to be an issue that dies without much consequence. Not all fields, even within the humanities, operate on the same assumptions, and some people see dissertations cited as a way of boosting your visibility within your specialty. Presses may eventually decide to ignore ProQuest dissertations and rely on the degree to which you have revised your material. Or they may just settle for your taking the document off line until after your book is in print. Various professional societies have argued that the thesis monograph should not serve as the basis for a tenure decision, and tenure itself may disappear some day. Obviously, such changes would affect the significance of your dissertation’s being available online.

For the present, though, none of these outcomes is assured, and the more radical are not likely to happen soon, so protect yourselves!

• Read your graduate office requirements now, not the week you hope to hand in your thesis.
• If your university requires public access, get your department to raise the issue with the university’s lawyers and its Ethics Committee or Ombudsperson.
• Try to get your graduate school to establish a mechanism for removing your thesis from open access should that prove necessary.
• If you can block access for a limited time with renewals, tattoo the renewal date on the back of your hand, with room for subsequent dates to be added.

Revising a humanities dissertation into a book can take far more effort than you realize. If you are moving from one temporary job to the next, having to pay for moves with nonexistent savings, and teaching six or more new courses each year, you will need to remember and act on successive deadlines despite many distractions. Ideally, you revise your manuscript during the first two years of your tenure clock. If you are lucky, you land your manuscript at a press within the next four years. Perhaps it will be in print a year after that. Only then should you let your dissertation go on line.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

UPDATE by Jacqueline Barlow:

While there is still some debate over the merits of publishing one’s dissertation or doctoral thesis online, the experiences of researchers and institutions in the years since Professor Hume’s post have provided a more nuanced view of the issue. Hume’s sources are anecdotal. But a look at the available data indicates that electronic dissertations and theses or ETDs constitute no real obstacle to publication. Two articles, published in 2013 and 2019 , support the same general conclusion that, allowing for the substantial rewrite necessary to turn a thesis into a book, almost no publisher would reject a manuscript simply because a version of it already existed as an ETD. Ramirez et al. (2013) report that 4.5% of academic publishers would not consider a manuscript simply because it already existed as an ETD, with that figure rising to 7.3% when journal publishers are excluded; six years later, Gilliam and Daoutis (2019) report that not a single academic publisher they consulted would reject a submission outright on this basis, although embargos and rewrites would in many cases be required.

It is worth noting that Ramirez et al. studied American publishers exclusively, and Gilliam and Daoutis focused on the United Kingdom. A search for registered policies on ROARMAP, the Registry of Open Access Repository Mandates and Policies,  indicates that the practice of requiring or requesting thesis deposit is common practice around the world, though it’s difficult to gauge how widespread, since registry in ROARMAP is voluntary. However, no associated drop in the number of ETDs turned into books has been established, though anecdotes are sometimes encountered. For a discussion of anecdotes versus data on this issue, see Cirasella and Thistlethwaite (2017), “ Open Access and the Graduate Author: A Dissertation Anxiety Manual .”

Professor Hume’s critique may still be of interest to those considering the drawbacks of making their thesis available via ProQuest, a practice which involves entering into a contract with the company and which appears to be commonplace across the USA. For a summary of the legal issues, see this post on The Scholarly Kitchen . Indeed, Hume writes as though “putting your dissertation on ProQuest” and “making your dissertation openly accessible” are synonymous; they are not. Depositing your thesis on an institutional repository does not necessarily involve any transfer of rights.

Jacqueline Barlow is Open Access Officer at The University of Winchester in Winchester, Hampshire, United Kingdom. Prior to maintaining the University’s institutional repository and promoting all things OA, she worked as a librarian and in research support. Jacqueline completed a Master of Library and Information Studies degree at McGill University in 2008. She tweets @barlowjk.

Similar Posts:

• Should I Send Out a Book Proposal Before the Manuscript is Completely Finished?
• Pitfalls of the Publication Para
• How Karen Helped Me Land My Dream Job [A Very Nice Guest Post]
• Stop Acting Like a Grad Student, Redux: “After My Defense, I Will…”
• Does the Status of the Press Matter?

Reader Interactions

August 24, 2011 at 7:05 am

I disagree profoundly on a few points here, and these will annoy many people!

The first that comes to mind is that a dissertation is not a book; however brilliant your dissertation is, a publisher will probably want something very different. Publishers want something that will sell and the conceptual scaffolding which you carefully constructed to “show your workings” to a dissertation committee will go to 2 footnotes and the bin. A good publisher knows that what they can get out of you 2 years after you complete the dissertation will be a much better product that the dissertation.

Secondly, I don’t accept the point that a dissertation has no or inadequate quality control. It has a different sort of quality control to the double-blind reading a publisher will give it, but it still the output of an examination process, and if it is not good enough, then you should not have passed.

The third issue I have is that this is grounded in assumptions about the dissertation-publication-tenure path which no longer hold. The old Phd-published monograph-tenured post track is broken at several points. Phd output in many disciplines exceeds the pool of academic jobs, so many Phd grads will no longer get academic posts, and many dissertations will never be published. If they are not online, they are dead. Realistically, given the competition out there, if the bright core of your thesis is not already on the path or publication in a peer-reviewed journal, you won’t even make a shortlist for an interview – as far as I can see, book plus two articles is now the minimum in many fields. Articles are much more serious competition for a book than a pdf on any repository, but they are also some evidence that the person has something to say, so it cuts both ways. Publishers have priced monographs out of the marketplace. I’ve seen monographs routinely priced at anything from €65 to €150; that represents an unjustifiable slice slice of my share of the library book fund; and if I can’t justify buying a copy, it doesn’t go on my class booklist and I don’t cite it.

August 24, 2011 at 5:50 pm

Thanks for the warning (although I am long past being able to take it). That said, does this beg the question of whether using publications as criteria for tenure needs to be reconsidered? Perhaps we need peer-reviewed on-line journals — I believe there are quite a few already in existence — run by people who recognize the difference between the two uses of “free” regarding information (hint: it isn’t the same as “free beer”). In my opinion, this system needs to change, and while warning people about how their careers could be damaged by being “published” on ProQuest is valuable, it also tacitly supports a system of scholarship that may be badly in need of change.

August 25, 2011 at 8:48 am

I agree the system has to change and probably is, as we speak. I just hope, while expectations are in flux, that the tenure casualties are kept to a minimum.

September 8, 2011 at 11:47 am

This is a really interesting post and discussion and I hope it gets more exposure — although the issue may be being discussed more widely than I realize.

My university requires ProQuest and we’re all horrified. I see Mike and Scott’s points but not to have a choice in this matter is really irritating. It’s one thing to have it in Ann Arbor microfilm but up online in dissertation form is too much of a violation, feels like robbery.

I especially object to the university’s propaganda which tells graduate students they are “publishing their dissertation” and that it is an “opportunity.”

March 24, 2012 at 4:01 pm

I know this is a year old, but I’m hoping for a reply…. In Canada, we’re pretty well required to sign permissions for ProQuest to have our dissertations. How can one undo this? You seem to imply that one can assert one’s copyright to the detriment of ProQuest. But how?

March 25, 2012 at 7:59 am

Oh dear, thsi was a guest post. I know nothing about ProQuest from personal experience. I’ll check with the author and see what she says.

March 25, 2012 at 10:56 am

From Prof. Hume: “I said nothing about copyright. I simply said that Proquest admitted that one could remove something, and the graduate school here proved helpful and helped four students remove theirs. I do not know how Canadian law fits in; where I ran into the most important hurdle was the sense of the grad school that as a semi-public university, our research was supposed to be available to the public.

However, given the info on how this could affect publication as a book and given the word I had from another school hammering this out that a press had refused to consider something unless it had been removed from proquest, the grad school at my institution backed off on demanding that. Thus, the undoing will have to be through the individual school.

October 5, 2012 at 11:14 am

> If you can block access for a limited time with renewals, tattoo the > renewal date on the back of your hand, with room for subsequent dates to be added.

For what it’s worth: though the ProQuest form distributed by my graduate institution, which I was required to submit along with the diss, had only 6-month, 1-yr, and 2-yr embargo options, I simply sent a letter to ProQuest, along with the form, saying I wanted an indefinite embargo. And ProQuest has thus far honored this for almost three years with no need for renewal.

Also, although some schools require that a diss author not set a ProQuest embargo for longer than a specified period, it’s not clear to me how that school could enforce this once a Ph.D. recipient is no longer a student there. For instance, my current school is now considering requiring graduates to get approval from their former diss advisors in order to extend an embargo. But, aside from degree revocation, what mechanism would even be available to an institution in order to compel a degree-in-hand graduate to allow ProQuest to post the work?

April 18, 2013 at 11:04 pm

This post makes me sad because when I was in college I loved looking up dissertations on ProQuest. I found all my professors’ (at least the abstracts) and read about half of them (one of which got me through a really fun trip that unfortunately had a lot of downtime and no internet). I mean, I get why someone might not want them up there. But I liked them, often better than the “officially” published books.

May 22, 2013 at 7:47 am

I agree with Eileen. Having dissertations online allow others to read about the academic work of others in their original, honest form.

August 20, 2013 at 11:58 pm

wow, great work, really appreciated .

September 22, 2013 at 10:08 pm

As someone who has never managed to land a University post despite having good grades and some (I hope) interesting research., I look to free online publishing as a means of sharing ideas before they become completely superseded. Like some of the commentators above, I find the “exclusiveness” of some academic work (i.e. pay-to-see journals etc) sad and self-defeating. It makes it difficult to research online. Surely it only ends up increasing the gulf of general ignorance, and does little to improve access to whatever the scholar in question laboured to achieve? Also, finances aside, what is the point of research unless it is trumpeted loud and wide? There may be some chance of plagerism, but that in itself is flattering (a good idea beckoning imitation), and ultimately other researchers do find out who the “original” source was, so it is hardly a permanent scar. I hope I am endlessly plagarised as what a boon that would be if something I ‘discovered’ spread like wildfire!!

August 25, 2014 at 12:14 pm

I want to comment on libraries keeping borrowing records of patrons–they don’t. Not routinely, at least. The profession wouldn’t stand for it, and while certain things have to stay in the system for a certain period of time (you wouldn’t want to return an item and find the system had already lost the record), the info is dropped as soon as the transaction is complete. Any stats that are kept (circulation numbers, for example) are not related to individual user accounts.

March 4, 2015 at 10:02 pm

If a dissertation has been successfully defended then it has had a rigorous peer review. Virtually every dissertation worldwide can be loaned from the relevant university, often scanned and distributed electronically and cited in the work of others. But it can take months and is very bureaucratic. But there is no reason to grant a giant corporation exclusive rights. After all, the hard work is your copyright and something you should be proud of.

I advocate the hard copy printing (on demand) of any thesis that might be cited in future publication. Why continue to see your work referred to in footnotes as ‘(unpublished) PhD thesis, University of ****, 2000’, or similar, when it can be cited clearly as a reprint of the thesis and you can even make a few bucks by selling it though Amazon? Many European universities demand print publication of a thesis – as is – after it has been publicly defended, and you will have to cite the source of any subsequent reworking of the material for journal or monograph publication in any case, so don’t pretend it doesn’t exist.

There are lots of deserving theses from the 1980s onwards in many disciplines that could do with wider readership. So, why not?

March 18, 2015 at 2:12 am

Dear Karen and Kathryn, I know this has been a while, but I am getting depressed now and I need some help. I finished my dissertation about two years ago and after making a few revisions to it I submitted it to an academic publishing house who had a call for books on my particular area of expertise. I sent the manuscript to them and after an initial positive response it went to the managing editor from whom I am waiting to hear back soon. In the meantime, I was browsing their website and with horror I discovered that they charge the author 10’000 Euro for a flat rate to get book out. How on earth do post-docs on a miserable salary get that amount of money to pay for a publication? I understand that the publishing house has to pay their employees etc, but 10’000 Euro?!? Isn’t it completely absurd that after 5 years of working our asses off, we, as authors have to pay on top 10’000 Euro? I find that simply depressing. Any ideas on how to get a book published without spending thousands of Euros/USD? Any tips on how to negotiate that or get funding to publish your dissertation? In Germany you are not entitled to your Dr. title unless you have published your dissertation. For the working poor online publishing through the university library seems like the only option. Thanks for any recommendations.

June 6, 2015 at 7:14 am

Help! I turned my dissertation into a book and am at the last stages of publication. The publisher is asking if this was a dissertation. Although I retained the title, I have rewritten and rewritten… do I need to check the box that says it is a dissertation and mentions the university? Thanks for any help!! M.

August 29, 2015 at 5:31 am

I must say this article is good one and open ones eyes. I too have published my thesis online and thinks it is good to share your knowledge with people. I used the following facility to put my thesis online. http://allthesisonline.com/2015/04/16/freely-publish-your-thesis-project-dissertation-online/

November 22, 2015 at 7:18 am

I agreed with Leonard Cassuto. You should opt for University platform only to make your dissertation available online.

April 12, 2016 at 3:33 am

Hi Pardon me for asking again? Which is it? Publishing one’s PhD dissertation online is harmful or not? Why is it harmful? Tq

April 12, 2016 at 9:09 am

Basically, harmful. for the reasons explained in this post.

April 12, 2016 at 6:15 pm

Hi again, Perhaps there are different cases for “Yin” knowledge such as Ph.D dissertations in Humanities, Arts and Social Science, Psychology, Law, Economics, Business as opposed to “Yang” knowledge in Ph.D dissertations in sciences and technical knowledge ( Engineering, Medicine, Computer Science, etc..).

August 19, 2016 at 6:47 am

I also want to confirm what jes says above about libraries not keeping borrowers records of what they borrowed. This is true, although it does take time for such records to be purged from the system. Furthermore, even if the records are available, no librarian worth his/her salt would EVER let you know who borrowed it previously. That would be completely out of line with the library code of ethics.

April 25, 2017 at 9:37 pm

What about self publishing your dissertation or thesis as an e-book on Amazon?

November 2, 2017 at 7:09 am

The hearsay (‘Oh I heard that someone was told they couldn’t get published’ that is cited in this article is not evidence. There are far better evidence-based investigations of these vague fears, most of which show that they are unfounded. Hiding research that you were funded to do, because you are afraid you won’t get tenure, is ethically wrong. More and more funders now require the results of research they’ve funded to be made publicly available, and rightly so. The avaricious, selfish attitude of this post will do harm to humanities as a discipline, as will a refusal to make research openly available.

October 5, 2018 at 1:44 am

On a related note, what is your advice as regards sharing the PhD dissertation in response to requests by scholars in your field, if one has a book forthcoming next year? Should one say, I will arrange for you to receive a review copy of my book or share the PhD straight away? If one shares the PhD should one ask for this to be referenced as the forthcoming book or as the dissertation?

Many thanks.

[…] researchers in other disciplines. Here are just a few of the articles and blog posts on this issue: The Professor is In blog, Leonard Cassuto in the Chronicle of Higher […]

[…] See, for instance http://theprofessorisin.com/2011/08/24/the-perils-of-publishing-your-dissertation-online/ [Last accessed 10 February […]

[…] here are a few links offering various perspectives on completed dissertations and public access: 1 2 3 4 5). I also worry about the scheduling commitment necessary for this sort of online […]

[…] mostly around the perils of putting your dissertation online with ProQuest. Kathryn Hume offers similar cautions. While both of these articles are incredibly interesting, informative, and a little nerve-wracking […]

[…] editors, and successful book contract signees. Allow me to spare you that exercise. For every few posts you will read in favor of embargoing the dissertation, and you will read others that are staunchly […]

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

• Who Is Dr. Karen?
• Who Is On the TPII Team?
• In The News
• Why Trust Me?
• Testimonials
• Peer Editing
• PhD Debt Survey
• Support Fund
• I Help With Custody Cases for Academics

Get on my schedule to work on your tenure track job cover letter, CV, grant applications, book proposals, interview preparation, and more.

Check for Openings

10.3.2  Including unpublished studies in systematic reviews

Publication bias clearly is a major threat to the validity of any type of review, but particularly of unsystematic, narrative reviews. Obtaining and including data from unpublished trials appears to be one obvious way of avoiding this problem.  Hopewell and colleagues conducted a review of studies comparing the effect of the inclusion or exclusion of ‘grey’ literature (defined here as reports that are produced by all levels of government, academics, business and industry in print and electronic formats but that are not controlled by commercial publishers) in meta-analyses of randomized trials (Hopewell 2007b) .  They included five studies (Fergusson 2000, McAuley 2000, Burdett 2003, Hopewell 2004) , all of which showed that published trials had an overall greater intervention effect than grey trials. A meta-analysis of three of these studies suggested that, on average, published trials showed a 9% larger intervention effect than grey trials (Hopewell 2007b) .

The inclusion of data from unpublished studies can itself introduce bias. The studies that can be located may be an unrepresentative sample of all unpublished studies. Unpublished studies may be of lower methodological quality than published studies: a study of 60 meta-analyses that included published and unpublished trials found that unpublished trials were less likely to conceal intervention allocation adequately and to blind outcome assessments (Egger 2003). In contrast, Hopewell and colleagues found no difference in the quality of reporting of this information (Hopewell 2004).

A further problem relates to the willingness of investigators of located unpublished studies to provide data. This may depend upon the findings of the study, more favourable results being provided more readily. This could again bias the findings of a systematic review. Interestingly, when Hetherington et al., in a massive effort to obtain information about unpublished trials in perinatal medicine, approached 42,000 obstetricians and paediatricians in 18 countries they identified only 18 unpublished trials that had been completed for more than two years (Hetherington 1989) .

A questionnaire assessing the attitudes toward inclusion of unpublished data was sent to the authors of 150 meta-analyses and to the editors of the journals that published them (Cook 1993). Researchers and editors differed in their views about including unpublished data in meta-analyses. Support for the use of unpublished material was evident among a clear majority (78%) of meta-analysts while journal editors were less convinced (47%) (Cook 1993).  This study was recently repeated, with a focus on the inclusion of grey literature in systematic reviews, and it was found that acceptance of inclusion of grey literature has increased and, although differences between groups remain (systematic review authors: 86%, editors: 69%), they may have decreased compared with the data presented by Cook et al. (Tetzlaff 2006).

Reasons for reluctance to include grey literature included the absence of peer-review of unpublished literature. It should be kept in mind, however, that the refereeing process has not always been a successful way of ensuring that published results are valid (Godlee 1999) . The team involved in preparing a Cochrane review should have at least a similar level of expertise with which to appraise unpublished studies as a peer reviewer for a journal. On the other hand, meta-analyses of unpublished data from interested sources are clearly a cause for concern.

TAFT COLLEGE

APA Style Guide, 7th Edition: Unpublished Manuscripts/Informal Publications (i.e. course packets and dissertations)

• Updated About In-text Citations
• Updated In-Text Examples
• What to Include
• Volume/Issue
• Bracketed Descriptions
• URLs and DOIs
• Book with Editor(s)
• Book with No Author
• Book with Organization as Author
• Book with Personal Author(s)
• Chapters and Parts of Books
• Classical Works
• Journal Article
• Magazine Article
• Multi-Volume Works
• Newspaper Article
• Patents & Laws
• Personal Communication
• Physicians' Desk Reference
• Social Media
• Unpublished Manuscripts/Informal Publications (i.e. course packets and dissertations)
• Formatting Your Paper
• Formatting Your References
• Headings in APA
• Annotated Bibliography

Formatting your References

Once you type your references on the reference page, you will need to put in a hanging indent and double-space the entire reference list. In Microsoft Word, highlight the references from A to Z, then find the paragraph function in the Word ribbon. Select Hanging under Indentation and Double under spacing. See the Formatting your References tab for instructions on doing this on a Mac or in Google Docs.

Abbas, D. D. F. (2020). Manipulating of audio-visual aids in the educational processes in Al-Hilla University College. International Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation, 24 (3), 1248-1263. https://doi.org.db12.linccweb.org/10.37200/ijpr/v24i3/pr200875

The citation above may not indicate a hanging indent depending on the device you are using to view it.  The second and all subsequent lines of APA formatted references use a hanging indent.

• << Previous: Social Media
• Next: Websites >>
• Last Updated: Sep 18, 2023 10:52 AM
• URL: https://lib.taftcollege.edu/c.php?g=1060143

QuickTips: The Blog @ Evidence Explained

Is This Published or Unpublished?

18 February 2015

Two mantras are common among those who use historical material:

• Cite what you've actually used.
• To decide what it is you've actually used, ask yourself: What am I holding in my hand?

One aspect of that Handholding Principle is often overlooked. We also need to ask ou rselves: Is this material published or unpublished?

If we use a published photograph, deed, letter, will, or pension application, the manner in which w e cite it will be significantly different from the manner in which we would cite something unpublished, something that is accessible in just one place, somethin g w e eyeballed there and can't access again without going there.

• If we are using a traditionally published image of a document, we have not used the actual document from Whatever Archives. We will be holding a book, or a journal, or a magazine, or a roll of microfilm, or that strange critter seldom seen by modern researchers—that card of tiny little negatives called, what, fish? no, fiche!
• If we are using an image published online, what we would be holding—if we reduced it to a physical form—would be a sheet of paper with (a) an image of a document, or (b) a database entry, or (c) an article we obtained from Such-and-Such Website, which (we can hope) tells us the source of its information

All of which is to say:

Our citation needs to reflect that difference between a published image and the original, the difference between a database entry and an image, the difference between an abstract or transcript that conveys only the details in the document as opposed to an authored article or book that injects interpretations and options.  Failing to record these differences will misrepresent what we have used. That misrepresentation could lead us or others astray in those many cases in which an alteration or legibility problem exists with the derivative we actually used.

And, of course, if you've never been sure how to tell whether something is published or unpublished, check out EE 2.18 .

PHOTO CREDIT: Created by E. S. Mills in the pre-PowerPoint Dark Ages, for course instruction in her evidence-analysis classes at Samford University's IGHR.

• Handholding Principle
• Published works
• Unpublished works
• Log in or register to post comments

© Evidence Explained  2011-2024.

• google plus

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Systematic review finds that study data not published in full text articles have unclear impact on meta-analyses results in medical research

Christine m. schmucker.

1 Cochrane Germany, Medical Center University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Germany

Anette Blümle

Lisa k. schell.

2 Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care, Cologne, Germany

Guido Schwarzer

3 Institute for Medical Biometry and Statistics, Faculty of Medicine and Medical Center University of Freiburg, Germany

Patrick Oeller

Laura cabrera, erik von elm.

4 Cochrane Switzerland, Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine (IUMSP), University Hospital Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland

Matthias Briel

5 Basel Institute for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Department of Clinical Research, University of Basel and University Hospital Basel, Switzerland

Joerg J. Meerpohl

• Conceptualization: CS JM.
• Formal analysis: GS.
• Funding acquisition: JM.
• Investigation: CS LKS AB PO LC JM.
• Methodology: CS JM.
• Supervision: JM.
• Writing – original draft: CS.
• Writing – review & editing: CS EvE MB JM.

Associated Data

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information file.

A meta-analysis as part of a systematic review aims to provide a thorough, comprehensive and unbiased statistical summary of data from the literature. However, relevant study results could be missing from a meta-analysis because of selective publication and inadequate dissemination. If missing outcome data differ systematically from published ones, a meta-analysis will be biased with an inaccurate assessment of the intervention effect. As part of the EU-funded OPEN project ( www.open-project.eu ) we conducted a systematic review that assessed whether the inclusion of data that were not published at all and/or published only in the grey literature influences pooled effect estimates in meta-analyses and leads to different interpretation.

Methods and findings

Systematic review of published literature (methodological research projects). Four bibliographic databases were searched up to February 2016 without restriction of publication year or language. Methodological research projects were considered eligible for inclusion if they reviewed a cohort of meta-analyses which (i) compared pooled effect estimates of meta-analyses of health care interventions according to publication status of data or (ii) examined whether the inclusion of unpublished or grey literature data impacts the result of a meta-analysis.

Seven methodological research projects including 187 meta-analyses comparing pooled treatment effect estimates according to different publication status were identified. Two research projects showed that published data showed larger pooled treatment effects in favour of the intervention than unpublished or grey literature data (Ratio of ORs 1.15, 95% CI 1.04–1.28 and 1.34, 95% CI 1.09–1.66). In the remaining research projects pooled effect estimates and/or overall findings were not significantly changed by the inclusion of unpublished and/or grey literature data. The precision of the pooled estimate was increased with narrower 95% confidence interval.

Conclusions

Although we may anticipate that systematic reviews and meta-analyses not including unpublished or grey literature study results are likely to overestimate the treatment effects, current empirical research shows that this is only the case in a minority of reviews. Therefore, currently, a meta-analyst should particularly consider time, effort and costs when adding such data to their analysis. Future research is needed to identify which reviews may benefit most from including unpublished or grey data.

Introduction

A meta-analysis as part of a systematic review aims to provide a thorough, comprehensive and unbiased statistical summary of data from the literature.[ 1 ] However, relevant study-results could be missing from a meta-analysis because of selective publication and inadequate dissemination (non-dissemination or insufficient dissemination). Even the most comprehensive searches are likely to miss study data which are not published at all such as supplemental unpublished data related to published trials, data obtained from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or other regulatory websites or postmarketing analyses hidden from the public. In addition, study data that are not published in conventional journals and, therefore, are not indexed in electronic databases are also likely to be not identified. This so called ‘grey literature’ is not controlled by commercial or academic publishers. It includes non-indexed conference abstracts frequently published in journal collections, dissertations, press releases, government reports, policy documents, book chapters or data obtained from trial registers ( Table 1 ). If the results from missing study data (unpublished and/or study data published in the grey literature) differ systematically from the published data available, a meta-analysis may become biased with an inaccurate assessment of the intervention effect.[ 2 – 4 ]

There is some evidence that indicates that published randomized controlled trials tend to be larger and show an overall greater treatment effect in favor of the intervention than grey literature trials or unpublished data.[ 5 – 8 ] However, the identification of relevant unpublished study data or data published in the grey literature and their inclusion in meta-analyses can be particularly challenging regarding excessive time, effort and costs. There is also some controversy regarding whether unpublished study data and data published in the grey literature should be included in meta-analyses at all, because they are generally not peer reviewed and their internal validity (risk of bias) may be difficult to assess due to poor reporting of the trials. On the other hand, particularly conference proceedings may take a separate role in the grey literature as they often provide preliminary results or results following intermediate follow-up. A publication by Cook and colleagues showed that 78% of authors of meta-analyses felt that unpublished studies should be included in meta-analyses compared to only 47% of journal editors.[ 9 ] Therefore, research is needed to assess the potential impact of inclusion of ‘grey literature’ study data and unpublished data in meta-analyses of health care interventions.

We investigated the impact of study data that were not published in full text articles in scientific journals on pooled effect estimates and the overall interpretation of meta-analyses.

The current review was part of the EU-funded OPEN project (To Overcome failure to Publish nEgative fiNdings; www.open-project.eu ) which aimed to investigate non-publication of study data and related dissemination bias through a series of systematic reviews[ 10 – 14 ] following a protocol published previously.[ 15 ]

Systematic literature search

We initially searched Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), The Cochrane Library and Web of Science from inception until February 2012. An update search was performed in February 2016. The search strategy was based on combinations of medical subject headings (MeSH) and keywords and was not restricted to specific languages or years of publication. The search strategy used in Medline (Ovid) is presented in S1 Search Strategy . Search strategies for other databases were modified to meet the requirements of each database. The searches were supplemented by checking the bibliographies of any eligible articles for additional references.

Patient involvement

This research is based on empirical work. Therefore, there was no patient involvement in this methodological systematic review of reviews (so called umbrella review ).

Study selection

Titles and abstracts were reviewed using pre-defined inclusion criteria. Full papers of all methodological research projects which included a cohort of meta-analyses (i.e., more than one meta-analysis) and (i) compared pooled effect estimates of meta-analyses of health care interventions according to publication status (i.e., published vs. unpublished and/or grey study data) and/or (ii) examined whether the inclusion of unpublished and/or grey study data impact the overall findings of a meta-analysis (i.e., from negatively significant to positively significant; from not clinically relevant to clinically relevant) were obtained for detailed evaluation.

All stages of study selection, data extraction and quality assessment were done independently by two reviewers (study selection and data extraction: PO and LC, quality assessment: CS and LKS). Any disagreement during the selection, extraction, and assessment process were resolved by discussion and consensus or with help of a third reviewer (JJM).

We considered a study ‘published’ when it appeared in a peer-reviewed journal. The definition of unpublished and/or grey literature study data had to be in accordance with the definition of ‘unpublished studies’ and ‘grey literature’ described above (see Introduction ).

A meta-analysis was defined as mathematical calculation of a weighted summary estimate of a treatment effect by pooling results of two or more studies.

First, we focused on the extent to which the pooled effect estimate in a meta-analysis changes with the inclusion of unpublished and/or study data published in the grey literature in comparison to published study data. Where possible, we calculated as our primary study outcome a ratio of risk ratios (RRR) or odds ratios (ROR) between the results of published data and the results of unpublished and/or grey literature data and estimate the percentage change (pooled risk ratio from published data divided by pooled risk ratio from unpublished data and/or grey literature data).[ 15 ] Thereby, a ratio greater than 1.0 would indicate that published study data showed a greater treatment effect; likewise a ratio below 1.0 would indicate that published data would show a smaller treatment effect. We also intended to calculate a single weighted pooled RRR or ROR to combine ratios from the different methodological research projects to estimate an overall pooled effect, which also takes into account factors such as number of studies, patients and events. For the intended analyses (to calculate a ratio of risk or odds ratios (RRR, ROR) between the results of published study data and unpublished and/or grey study data), the single effect estimates (RR, OR) estimated by the included meta-analyses would be the ‘unit of analyses’.

Second, we aimed to investigate the impact of the inclusion of unpublished or grey literature study data on the interpretation of meta-analyses. This impact can be estimated by calculating the proportion of meta-analyses which showed a change in their interpretation (e.g., from negatively significant to positively significant; from not clinically relevant to clinically relevant).[ 15 ]

Data extraction

We extracted main characteristics of (i) the methodological research projects (e.g., baseline data, area of health care, number of meta-analyses included); (ii) the meta-analyses (e.g., purpose and scope of meta-analyses, number of studies and participants included); and (iii) the studies included in meta-analyses (e.g., number of studies depending on publication status). For more detail see our published protocol.[ 15 ]

Assessment of risk of bias and generalizability of results

No quality assessment tool exists for these types of methodological research projects. Risk of bias (internal validity) and generalizability (external validity) were therefore assessed according to pre-defined criteria which were developed considering empirical evidence on dissemination bias[ 10 , 16 ] and internal discussion.[ 15 ] The assessment of risk of bias was based on (i) the selection process; i.e., whether and to which extent the search criteria were reported to identify unpublished and/or grey and published study data; (ii) definition of the publication status; i.e., whether explicit criteria were reported for the definition of unpublished or grey literature and published data; (iii) role of confounding factors; i.e., whether the difference of the results between unpublished/grey and published study data may be explained by differences in study designs, type of participants or intervention characteristics and not by a true difference in the results between unpublished/grey literature and published data; therefore we investigated whether analyses were stratified or results adjusted for possible confounders. In addition, we investigated the reliability of the data extraction process; i.e., whether data extraction was performed by two researchers independently. Generalizability assessment was based on (i) the status of the sample of meta-analyses included; i.e., whether a random, consecutive or selected sample was included and (ii) whether the research project selected a broad-ranging sample of meta-analyses that presents the current literature in the field of interest (e.g., in terms of size or diversity of topic).

For data extraction and risk of bias assessment, we relied on information provided in publications of the methodological research projects.

Statistical analysis and data synthesis

The sparse data did not allow us to apply the predefined statistical analyses neither for the main analysis nor the subgroup analyses.[ 15 ] Instead, results of this systematic review are presented descriptively using text and tables.

Literature search and selection process

The searches identified 8464 citations, including 3301 duplicates ( Fig 1 ). Among the 5163 unique references screened, 10 references[ 3 , 17 – 25 ] corresponding to 7 methodological research projects[ 3 , 19 – 24 ] were eligible for inclusion in this systematic review.

(as published by Moher D et al in BMJ 2009;339:b2535 ).

Characteristics of included research projects

Main characteristics of the 7 research projects are presented in Tables ​ Tables2 2 and ​ and3. 3 . In brief, 5 research projects included conventional intervention reviews[ 3 , 20 – 23 ], 1 research project was solely based on safety aspects,[ 24 ] while another research project included individual participant data meta-analyses.[ 19 ] Different medical specialties were displayed in 4 research projects[ 3 , 22 – 24 ], while 3 focused on a single medical field.[ 19 – 21 ] In total, 187 meta-analyses with 1617 primary studies (373 unpublished/grey literature studies and 1244 published studies) enrolling a total of 428762 participants (58786 participants in unpublished/grey literature studies and 369976 in published studies) were included. It has to be taken into account that the given numbers of included studies and participants are underestimated because Hart et al[ 23 ] and Golder et al[ 24 ] did not provide these study characteristics in detail. The publication dates of the latest meta-analyses included in the research projects ranged between 1995[ 3 ] and 2014.[ 24 ]

* 20 meta-analyses corresponding to 11 systematic reviews. Golder et al 2016[ 24 ] included 28 meta-analyses in total; from 20 meta-analyses pooled estimates of published studies alone could be compared against unpublished and published estimates.

** 42 meta-analyses corresponding to 9 systematic reviews (for 9 drugs across 6 drug classes).

# The number of studies was reported in the previous review from Golder and colleagues in 2010[ 25 ] evaluating only 5 meta-analyses. In the up-dated version of the review (Golder et al 2016[ 24 ]), the number of included studies could not be derived. Therefore the number of included studies is underestimated.

FDA: Food and Drug Administration, N: total number, NR: not reported, NSAID: non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, RCTs: randomized controlled trials.

* The proportion (calculated as number of participants from unpublished outcomes divided by total number of participants) of unpublished FDA data in meta-analysis ranged between 8 and 94%.

** Three meta-analyses: meta-analysis I: N = 4 studies, meta-analysis II: N = 3 studies, meta-analysis III: N = 8 studies.

*** Three meta-analyses: meta-analysis I: N = 1 studies, meta-analysis II: N = 3 studies, meta-analysis III: N = 15 studies.

# Three meta-analyses: meta-analysis I: N = 179 participants, meta-analysis II: N = 665 participants, meta-analysis III: N = 1452 participants.

## Three meta-analyses: meta-analysis I: N = 60 participants, meta-analysis II: N = 959 participants, meta-analysis III: N = 2826 participants.

NR: not reported, -: grey literature was not included in this research project, only unpublished data.

Table 4 presents the assessment of risk of bias and generalizability of results for each research project. Regarding risk of bias, each research project reported how unpublished or grey literature study data were identified within meta-analyses. Unpublished or grey literature data (e.g., in terms of conference abstracts, dissertations or editorials) were sufficiently defined in all research projects. The main limitation of the research projects was that most of them (except for Golder et al[ 24 ]) did not allow us to judge whether grey literature or unpublished study data in comparison to published data were adequately matched (e.g., in terms of study aim or sample size) or adjusted for confounders.

* For the assessment of risk of bias and generalizability of the results, we relied on the reporting of the methodological research project.

Risk of bias

Methodology to identify unpublished/grey studies: + at least one indicator of appropriate searches for unpublished/grey studies was given (e.g., searches of conference proceedings, contacts with authors, companies that produced the therapies and/or co-investigators); - no indicators were reported; ? not enough information for a judgment.

Definition of grey/unpublished studies: + detailed definition of grey literature (e.g., abstracts, book chapters) and/or unpublished data (e.g., studies as part of a new drug application, FDA data) is given that is compatible with our definition used for this review; - grey and/or unpublished literature was not predefined; ? not enough information for a judgment.

Adjustment for potential confounders: + the groups (unpublished or grey literature studies vs published studies) are matched in terms of e.g., study aim, study population, dosage and study quality or , if not, adjustment for confounding factors by multivariable analysis was carried out; - no (adequate) analyses were carried out or study groups were clearly not comparable; ? not enough information for a judgment.

Data extraction: + data extraction was carried out by 2 researchers independently; - data extraction was carried out by 1 researcher; ? not enough information for a judgement.

Generalizability

Sampling method (how was the sample determined?): + a random or consecutive sample was used, or all meta-analyses within a predefined period of time were selected; - a selected sample of meta-analyses was used; ? sampling method not reported.

Re-presentation of the medical field of interest: + the sample of meta-analyses re-presents the medical field of interest, e.g., a broad-ranging sample was used; - the selected sample was not broad enough to reflect the current literature; ? not enough information for a judgement.

Generalizability of results was low or unclear in four research projects.[ 3 , 19 , 20 , 24 ] It means that the results of these research projects were either based on a selected sample of meta-analyses (e.g., meta-analyses from one research group only were used) or the medical field of interest was not sufficiently represented (e.g., only few rare sorts of cancers or a small range of interventions were considered).

Effect of unpublished or grey literature study data on pooled estimates in meta-analyses

The effects of unpublished or grey literature studies on pooled estimates in meta-analyses are shown in Table 5 . One research project (including 467 randomized controlled trials) showed that published studies had a larger pooled treatment effect in favor of the intervention than unpublished studies (ROR 1.15, 95% CI 1.04–1.28).[ 3 ] In the remaining research projects pooled effect estimates were not significantly changed by the inclusion of unpublished or grey literature data. However, Egger et al[ 22 ] presented the pooled effect estimate across different medical specialties (ROR 1.07, 95% CI 0.98; 1.15)–but also separated effect estimates for selected medical fields. In the field of obstetrics and gynaecology this pooled analysis showed that published results are more positive than unpublished results (ROR 1.34, 95% CI 1.09–1.66). In psychiatry there was a similar trend but pooled estimates did not reach statistical significance (ROR 1.61, 95% CI 0.9–2.9). The combination of estimates across methodological research projects was not possible due to differences in the definitions of effect estimates (some research projects reported hazard ratios, other odds ratios or risk ratios, or even weighted mean differences) and clinical heterogeneity (different aims of the research projects regarding safety and efficacy outcomes).

* Only the effect estimate for the intervention ‘tranexamic acid’ to reduce perioperative red blood cell transfusions was provided. For other interventions it was reported that the odds ratios of the meta-analyses were not substantially changed by inclusion of grey (non-peer reviewed) reports.

** Ratio of risk ratios for common adverse effects.

# Effect estimate across all medical specialties.

## Egger et al 2003 also separated effect estimates for selected medical fields. In obstetrics and gynaecology this pooled analysis showed that published results are more positive than unpublished results (ROR: 1.34 [1.09–1.66]). In psychiatry there was a similar trend but pooled estimates did not reach statistical significance (ROD: 1.61 [0.90–2.90]).

§ Individual data of summary statistic are presented in Table 2 of the original publication of Hart and colleagues in 2012.[ 23 ]

§ § Comparison of abstracts and full publications.

° The pooled effect estimate was only given in the previous review from Golder and colleagues in 2010.[ 25 ] This risk estimates was derived from only 5 meta-analyses. In the research project from 2016,[ 24 ] a pooled risk estimate over all meta-analyses was not provided.

OR: odds ratio; RR: relative risk, WMD: weighted mean difference.

Impact of unpublished or grey literature study data on the interpretation of meta-analyses

Five research projects provided additional information on the overall impact of unpublished or grey literature study data on the interpretation of the results. The results are descriptively summarized in Table 5 . Hart and colleagues[ 23 ] reported that the addition of unpublished data to their sample of meta-analyses caused in 46% lower, in 7% identical and in 46% greater effect estimates than published data. In the research project from Egger et al[ 22 ] removal of grey literature data resulted in a change in pooled estimates from a 28% decrease to a 24% increase in benefit. McAuley and colleagues[ 3 ] reported that removal of grey literature data changed the estimate by at least 10%. Thereby, significance of the results was affected in 3 out of 41 meta-analyses.

On the other hand, Fergusson and colleagues[ 21 ] and Golder and colleagues[ 24 ] stated that ‘effect estimates were not substantially changed’[ 21 ] or that ‘the direction and magnitude of the difference varies and is not consistent’[ 24 ] when unpublished or grey literature data are added.

Principal findings

Although it was shown that some case samples of meta-analyses not including grey literature or unpublished data clearly overestimate treatment effects,[ 6 – 8 ] quantifying this effect by considering all meta-epidemiological studies (so called methodological research projects ) reveals that this affects only a minority of reviews. In the majority of meta-analyses over a wide range of medical fields, excluding unpublished trials had no or only a small effect on the pooled estimates of treatment effects. However, in some instances more substantial, statistically significant changes were observed (overestimating the effect between 9 and 60%)[ 22 ] There may be a tendency in research areas involving new drugs or technologies to publish the most exciting and positive results more rapidly, and negative ones less quickly, if at all.[ 10 ] Also sponsorship of drug and device studies by the manufacturer leads to more favourable results and conclusions than sponsorship by other sources.[ 26 ] Consequently, the problem of dissemination bias could be more pronounced in medical areas in which relevant innovations are being developed at quick pace or when trials are published close to drug approval. This assumption, however, could not be proven with the available empirical data.

Our research and other reviews[ 5 , 27 ] revealed that unpublished trials are often smaller (e.g., Table 3 , differences in medians between unpublished or grey literature study data and published data: 11,[ 22 ] 534,[ 21 ] and 29[ 3 ] patients, respectively). Small sample sizes may be one of the reasons that unpublished or grey literature study data are less likely to produce statistically significant results than published data. However, if study size was the only factor impacting on the likelihood of publication this would not result in bias, but a lack of precision with wider confidence intervals of effect estimates.

Methodological research projects included in this review used different statistical methods to determine the contribution of unpublished data in meta-analyses. For example, Egger and colleagues[ 22 ] used the statistic chosen by the original reviewers of the meta-analyses to calculate pooled effect estimates separately for unpublished and published trials. Thereafter, weighted averages for all these ratios were calculated using random effects models. McAuley and colleagues [ 3 ] chose a fixed effect logistic regression model which requires individual patient data from each trial. This approach ignores heterogeneity between trials and between meta-analyses. In general, too little consideration has been given to appropriate statistical methods for this type of meta-epidemiological research so far. This may lead to an underestimation of the uncertainty of effect estimates due to unpublished data in meta-analyses.[ 28 ]

None of the methodological research projects addressed the problem of multiple journal publications.[ 29 ] Unaccounted duplicate publication may inflate the number of participants and/or events leading to increased precision and, obviously, causes dissemination bias.

Evidence from a Cochrane review has shown that only about half of all trials reported as abstracts and presented at conferences are subsequently published in full.[ 16 ] In addition, it takes, on average, three years for a trial reported as an abstract to be eventually published in a peer-reviewed journal. Therefore, excluding them seems an arbitrary act that may bias the results. On the other hand, McAuley and colleagues showed that the inclusion of abstracts had no relevant impact on pooled estimates of meta-analyses over different medical fields.[ 3 ] Moreover, concerns have been raised regarding the methodological and reporting quality in unpublished studies, because grey or unpublished literature is often not peer reviewed. We believe that abstracts may take a separate role in the grey literature as they often provide preliminary study results, results following intermediate follow-up, or unexpected findings. Consequently, when a researcher decides to include unpublished or grey literature study data in meta-analyses, it is important to run sensitivity analyses to identify possible differences between results from unpublished or grey literature studies and from fully published papers. While there is no doubt that studies that have positive results are subsequently published as full-length journal articles more often than studies with negative results,[ 10 ] lack of time of the authors may be a major reason for non-publication of research—independent of the direction of results.[ 30 ]

Strengths and weaknesses of this review

This systematic review sought to comprehensively synthesize the body of research on the impact of including unpublished study data and data published in the grey literature in meta-analyses. By discussing multiple study characteristics and potential confounders related to unpublished studies and studies published in the grey literature, we could not identify sufficient evidence to conclude whether or to which extent inclusion of unpublished and grey study data have an impact on the pooled effect estimates and the conclusions from meta-analyses. Nevertheless, the available research projects demonstrates that availability of unpublished and grey literature data leads to a more precise risk estimates with narrower 95% confidence intervals, thus representing higher evidence strength according to the GRADE evaluation (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation).[ 31 ] In addition, we developed criteria to assess both risk of bias and generalizability for this specific type of empirical research which may be of high value in future methodological research. Our strategy was not focused on the results of single meta-analyses including published and unpublished data, but on meta-epidemiological studies. We expected that theses research projects would allows us to estimate the “average” overestimation of treatment effects due to dissemination bias.

However, we are aware that our findings have several limitations: First, we could not identify sufficient research projects to conclude whether or to which extent inclusion of unpublished and grey study data have an impact on the conclusions from meta-analyses. Second, the risk of bias assessment revealed that the internal validity may be hampered due to the lack of appropriate adjustment for potential confounders between published and unpublished or grey literature data in the identified methodological research projects. Second, our research is mainly limited to selected samples of medical literature (e.g., rare sorts of cancers or a small range of adverse effects), and hence the findings may not be generalizable to other medical fields. However, most medical fields assessed were large and permitted evaluation of a large number of studies.[ 19 , 21 ] Another weakness of our study relates to its retrospective nature and its reliance on what authors described as comprehensive literature searches. We did not assess whether the sample of trials identified by these authors was in fact complete and whether searches were truly comprehensive. If searches were inadequate, so that many unpublished or grey literature studies with negative results were consciously or unconsciously omitted, then our review may underestimate the impact of dissemination bias. Roughly the same would be true, if predominantly unpublished or grey literature studies with similar results to published studies were identified by inadequate searches. But we could not judge how often this happened. On the other hand, we are concerned about the possibility of dissemination bias (in particular reporting bias), where investigators may have chosen not to write up their results (e.g., for a subgroup of patients) if they did not find any significant differences between published and unpublished study data. We believe that the impact of unpublished or grey literature data on pooled estimates could be assessed more thoroughly if the intention to compare data sources according to publication status was built in at the protocol stage of these meta-analyses.

Time, effort, and cost involved in locating and retrieving unpublished data and grey literature makes its inclusion in reviews challenging. Legal obligation to prospectively register trials and make results available after completion of the trial in many countries (including the United States and Europe), different registries for clinical trials such as the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) or the database ClinicalTrials.gov, internet-based grey literature resources, journals devoted to negative trials, or efforts taken by various groups, including Cochrane (through trial registries), may further ease the identification and inclusion of unpublished data in meta-analyses.

We acknowledge that more than half of all published systematic reviews are not including meta-analyses.[ 32 ] Despite our focus on the impact of unpublished and grey literature study data on pooled effect estimates in meta-analyses, we believe that our findings are also applicable to systematic reviews with qualitative/descriptive summaries.

Comparison with other systematic reviews

We are aware of one methodological Cochrane review which addressed the impact of unpublished and grey literature data in meta-analyses on the basis of meta-epidemiological studies.[ 5 ] This review was published in 2007 and concluded that grey literature trials show an overall greater treatment effect than published trials. The authors acknowledged that the evidence is sparse and that more efforts are needed to identify a complete and unbiased set of trials irrespective of whether they have been published or not. In contrast to our review, this methodological review is nearly 10 years old, did not apply methods to address risk of bias and generalizability of the results of the included studies covering the given research question.

Our findings suggest that dissemination bias is a very serious threat to the results of meta-analyses, but not always impacts their results. This finding is supported by other studies (not meeting the inclusion criteria for this review) based on unpublished FDA data and published data. e.g., [ 6 , 33 ] One of these meta-analyses investigating selective publication of antidepressant trials found a bias toward the publication of positive results, resulting in an effect size nearly one third larger than the effect size derived from unpublished FDA data.[ 6 ] Controversially, MacLean and collegues[ 33 ] reported that risk ratios for dyspepsia did not significantly or clinically differ using published or unpublished FDA data.

Implications for policy makers and further research

This work has implications for researchers and those who use meta-analyses to help inform clinical and policy decisions. (i) Investigators should ensure a comprehensive systematic literature search to avoid or at least attenuate the effect of dissemination bias. Such searches can be resource-intensive particularly when unpublished and grey literature data need to be identified. If the available resources do not permit comprehensive searches to identify unpublished or grey literature data, we strongly recommend (at least) a search in trial registries (such as the ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov) and websites of regulatory authorities which is less resource-intensive than searching for conference proceedings or dissertations, contacting experts, the industry and authors. When including unpublished or grey literature data sensitivity analyses should be carried out taking into account that this research may provide only preliminary results, is usually not peer reviewed and/or at higher risk of bias. It is obvious that even a thorough literature search cannot eliminate dissemination bias. Therefore, it is also of great importance to apply additional methods for detecting, quantifying and adjusting for dissemination bias in meta-analyses.[ 14 ] Such methods include graphical methods based on funnel plot asymmetry, statistical methods, such as regression tests, selection models, and a great number of more recent statistical approaches. [ 2 ] [ 34 – 36 ] However, the empirical research work of Mueller et al 2016 concluded that it remains difficult to advise which method should be used as they are all limited and only few methods have been validated in empirical evaluations using unpublished studies obtained from regulators (e.g., FDA studies).[ 14 ] Selective outcome reporting in clinical studies is also an indicator for hidden or missing data, especially when only selective slices of the complete clinical trial are published or when studies show huge drop-out rates without providing reasons for these patients who left the study.[ 7 , 37 , 38 ] Overall, researchers should carefully consider the potential risk of dissemination bias when interpreting their findings. (ii) Those using meta-analyses to assist with clinical and policy decisions should also be aware of dissemination bias, because dissemination bias may have direct impact for patient care.[ 39 ] (iii) Major improvements have been made in the accessibility of data by initiatives such as the AllTrials campaign ( www.alltrials.net ) calling for all trials to be registered and the methods and results to be reported, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) policy on publication of clinical data on request since 2015, the obligatory release of results in trial registries by the European law (Clinical Trial Regulation), the FDA Amendment Act in 2007 and advocacy from the Cochrane Collaboration to fully implement such policies. Although progress has been made, there are still major issues related to unrestricted data access. Even when data are released, they can be incomplete, selective or not in compliance with the results reported in study registers such as ClinicalTrials.gov.[ 40 ] [ 41 ] [ 42 ] Therefore, further action is required to progress toward unrestricted data access. Particularly the full release of clinical study reports (CSR) may contain more information than other unpublished sources and, therefore, may have the potential to overcome existing problems.[ 43 ] (iv) Our research indicates that it seems that it will not be possible for a meta-analyst to judge before-hand whether the addition of unpublished and grey literature study data impacts the pooled effect estimates and leads to a change in the overall conclusions. (v) Finally, even the most comprehensive search for grey and unpublished data will not allow a final judgment whether the identified sample is in fact complete and representative for all of the hidden data.

Supporting information

S1 search strategy, acknowledgments.

The authors thank the members of the OPEN consortium Gerd Antes, Vittorio Bertele, Xavier Bonfill, Marie-Charlotte Bouesseau, Isabelle Boutron, Silvano Gallus, Silvio Garattini, Karam Ghassan, Carlo La Vecchia, Britta Lang, Jasper Littmann, Jos Kleijnen, Michael Kulig, Mario Malicki, Ana Marusic, Katharina Felicitas Mueller, Hector Pardo, Matthias Perleth, Philippe Ravaud, Andreas Reis, Daniel Strech, Ludovic Trinquart, Gerard Urrútia, Elizabeth Wager, Alexandra Wieland, and Robert Wolff.

The authors also thank Edith Motschall for conducting the comprehensive systematic literature search.

Funding Statement

The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement n° 285453. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Data Availability

• Unpublished Tests

Unpublished tests are found in the scholarly literature and are usually developed by university researchers or other professionals, government agencies, or nonprofit organizations. Unpublished tests are not obtained by a publisher but are usually found in journal articles appendices, dissertations, books, and other research reports. While access to these tests is not restricted, ethical conduct requires that these tests should be used only with the permission of the instrument's author.

Unpublished Tests in a Published Article, Book, or Dissertation

Use the Advanced Search feature to locate copies of unpublished tests in journal articles.  Each database indexes the use of tests differently, so make sure you browse the available options to find what you need.  Some databases allow you to show only tests/instruments in your results, and others index the name of the test as a field called "Instrumentation."

Click here for social work databases.

Dissertations

Ph.D. candidates may develop or use a test as part of their dissertation.  Use a keyword search in Dissertations & Theses Global to find these.

Tests and Measures Database ( TMdb )

This open-source database helps researchers to identify resources which contain full-text tests and measures, and to allow them to search by topic or title. 

This list is not exhaustive; it is updated as new information becomes available and human resources are available to create updates.

Entries include only instrument title, author, date, & pages located in a larger compilation. Once you have a citation to your test, check Adelphi University's Libraries' OneSearch to see if we have a copy, or order a copy from ConnectNY or Interlibrary Loan.

Note:  Use Refwork's Refshare database rather than the University of Texas Arlington's catalog's search tool. It appears that the catalog no longer supports the TMdb function.

• TMdB: Tests and Measures Database (University of Texas at Arlington) 1. Limit to TMdb Pages: search UTA's Web Site and include TMdb as one of your keywords. (Ex: perinatal grief TMdb) 2. Search for author last names, no first names included. (Ex: John W. Brown, Jr. listed as Brown Jr JW) 3. For "subject" type searching, always consider searching with other synonyms (Ex: learning OR teaching OR educating) Once a contents page has been identified, use your browser's toolbar to EDIT, then FIND a keyword on the page.
• << Previous: Published Tests
• Next: Print Resources >>
• Published Tests
• Nursing & Health
• Women, Families, & Marriage
• Web Resources
• Bibliography

Ask A Librarian

• Last Updated: Nov 14, 2023 11:31 AM
• URL: https://libguides.adelphi.edu/tests-and-measures