  Researchers are more likely to share notable findings. As a result, published
findings tend to overstate the magnitude of real-world phenomena. This bias is
a natural concern for asset pricing research, which has found hundreds of
return predictors and little consensus on their origins.
  Empirical evidence on publication bias comes from large scale meta-studies.
Meta-studies of cross-sectional return predictability have settled on four
stylized facts that demonstrate publication bias is not a dominant factor: (1)
almost all findings can be replicated, (2) predictability persists
out-of-sample, (3) empirical $t$-statistics are much larger than 2.0, and (4)
predictors are weakly correlated. Each of these facts has been demonstrated in
at least three meta-studies.
  Empirical Bayes statistics turn these facts into publication bias
corrections. Estimates from three meta-studies find that the average correction
(shrinkage) accounts for only 10 to 15 percent of in-sample mean returns and
that the risk of inference going in the wrong direction (the false discovery
rate) is less than 10%.
  Meta-studies also find that $t$-statistic hurdles exceed 3.0 in multiple
testing algorithms and that returns are 30 to 50 percent weaker in alternative
portfolio tests. These facts are easily misinterpreted as evidence of
publication bias effects. We clarify these misinterpretations and others,
including the conflating of ``mostly false findings'' with ``many insignificant
findings,'' ``data snooping'' with ``liquidity effects,'' and ``failed
replications'' with ``insignificant ad-hoc trading strategies.''
  Meta-studies outside of the cross-sectional literature are rare. The four
facts from cross-sectional meta-studies provide a framework for future
research. We illustrate with a preliminary re-examination of equity premium
predictability.
