  Some empirical results are more likely to be published than others. Such
selective publication leads to biased estimates and distorted inference. This
paper proposes two approaches for identifying the conditional probability of
publication as a function of a study's results, the first based on systematic
replication studies and the second based on meta-studies. For known conditional
publication probabilities, we propose median-unbiased estimators and associated
confidence sets that correct for selective publication. We apply our methods to
recent large-scale replication studies in experimental economics and
psychology, and to meta-studies of the effects of minimum wages and de-worming
programs.
