Data and codes for meta-analysis

Macroeconomics

• Effect of monetary policy on house prices: corrected for publication bias and misspecification, a 1.2% fall in house prices per 1-percentage-point policy rate rise, peaking after two years (correcting for publication bias alone gives 0.23%, but conditioning on best practice offsets it), based on 1,555 estimates from 237 impulse responses in 37 studies (Ehrenbergerova et al. 2023, IMF Economic Review) doi.
• Effect of structural reforms on economic growth: reforms in transition countries cost growth in the short run but raise it strongly in the long run, and that holds after correcting for publication bias, based on 60 studies with 537 estimates (Babecky and Havranek 2014, Economics of Transition) doi.
• Elasticity of intertemporal substitution in consumption: corrected for publication bias, 0.3-0.4 (micro estimates for asset holders; macro mean zero), based on 2,735 estimates from 169 published studies (Havranek 2015, Journal of the European Economic Association) doi.
• Elasticity of substitution between capital and labor: the meta-analytic estimate is 0.3 (best-practice specification; the mean reported estimate is 0.9), based on 3,186 estimates from 121 studies (Gechert et al. 2022, Review of Economic Dynamics) doi.
• Excess sensitivity of consumption to anticipated income changes: the estimate corrected for aggregation and publication bias is 0.11, against a mean reported estimate of 0.37, based on about 3,000 estimates from 144 studies (Havranek and Sokolova 2020, Review of Economic Dynamics) doi.
• Optimal long-run inflation rate: the meta-analytic estimate is about 0.6% per year (calibration-dominated model literature), based on 777 estimates from 116 primary studies (Opatrny et al. 2026) pdf.
• The price puzzle (prices rising after monetary tightening): it disappears once publication and misspecification biases are corrected, and prices fall instead, bottoming out 0.33% below baseline six months after a 1-percentage-point rate rise, based on about 1,000 estimates from 70 studies (Rusnak et al. 2013, Journal of Money, Credit and Banking) doi.
• Transmission lag of monetary policy to prices: the meta-analytic estimate is 29 months on average, but 25-50 months in developed economies against 10-20 in post-transition ones; the factor explaining that gap is financial development, with greater development meaning slower transmission (prices bottom out 0.9% below baseline after a 1-percentage-point hike), based on 67 published studies (Havranek and Rusnak 2013, International Journal of Central Banking) pdf.
• Why intertemporal substitution varies across countries: the meta-analytic finding is income and asset market participation are the most effective factors in explaining the cross-country heterogeneity, based on 2,735 estimates from 169 published studies covering 104 countries (Havranek et al. 2015, Journal of International Economics) doi.

Micro and experimental economics

• Beauty premium in earnings: the meta-analytic estimate is 1.1% (95% CrI -0.8% to 3.0%; controlling for cognitive ability; large only for sex workers), based on 1,159 estimates in 67 studies (Irsova et al. 2025) pdf.
• Coefficient of relative risk aversion: corrected for publication bias, 1 in economics, 2-7 in finance (from consumption Euler equation studies), based on 1,021 estimates from 92 studies (Elminejad et al. 2025, Journal of Economic Surveys) doi.
• Effect of financial incentives on performance: corrected for publication bias, about 0 (field contexts; lab and loss framing modestly positive), based on 2,193 estimates from 88 economics experiments (Cala et al. 2026, Journal of Political Economy Microeconomics) doi.
• Effect of physical exercise on cognition: corrected for publication bias, SMD 0.227 for general cognition, 0.027 for memory and 0.012 for executive function (wide prediction intervals spanning negative and positive effects), based on 2,239 effect-size estimates from 215 meta-analyses (Bartos et al. 2025) doi.
• Habit formation in consumption: the meta-analytic estimate is 0.4 (macro 0.6, micro 0.1; mean reported estimate, with no correction for publication bias), based on 597 estimates from 81 published studies (Havranek et al. 2017, European Economic Review) doi.
• Individual discount rate (impatience measured in experiments): corrected for publication bias, 33% per year, based on 927 estimates from 56 studies (Matousek et al. 2022, Experimental Economics) doi.

Energy and environmental economics

• Climate sensitivity (warming from a doubling of CO2): corrected for publication bias, 1.4-2.3 degrees Celsius (all 48 published estimates from 16 studies, literature search closed March 2014; the IPCC AR6 Working Group I report, published seven years later in 2021, gives a best estimate near 3 C), based on 48 estimates from 16 studies (Reckova and Irsova 2015, Energy and Environment) doi.
• Electricity savings from daylight saving time: the best-practice estimate is essentially zero, 0.01% savings, against a 0.34% simple average of reported estimates (savings during the days DST applies; the paper finds no publication bias in this literature, so this is a methodological correction), based on 162 estimates from 44 studies (Havranek et al. 2018, Energy Journal) doi.
• Income elasticity of gasoline demand: corrected for publication bias, 0.1 short run, 0.23 long run (Havranek and Kokes 2015, Energy Economics) doi.
• Income elasticity of water demand: corrected for publication bias, about 0.15 or less, based on 307 estimates (Havranek et al. 2018, Land Economics) doi.
• Natural resource curse (effect of resource richness on long-run growth): the meta-analytic finding is weak support for a curse, based on 605 estimates from 43 studies (Havranek et al. 2016, World Development) doi.
• Price elasticity of electricity demand: corrected for publication bias, -0.16 short run, -0.38 long run (best-identified short-run estimates statistically indistinguishable from zero), based on 4,720 estimates from 462 studies (Kudela et al. 2026) pdf.
• Price elasticity of gasoline demand: corrected for publication bias, -0.09 short run, -0.31 long run (Havranek et al. 2012, Energy Economics) doi.
• Social cost of carbon: corrected for publication bias, 0-134 USD per metric ton of carbon (2010 prices, emission year 2015; per ton of carbon, not CO2), based on 809 estimates from 101 studies (Havranek et al. 2015, Energy Economics) doi.

International economics

• Armington elasticity (substitution between domestic and foreign goods): the meta-analytic estimate is 2.5-5.1, median 3.8, based on 3,524 estimates (Bajzik et al. 2020, Journal of International Economics) doi.
• Border effect on international trade: the meta-analytic finding is one-third reduction in trade, based on 1,271 estimates from 61 studies (Havranek and Irsova 2017, IMF Economic Review) doi.
• Determinants of horizontal FDI spillovers: the main result is that spillovers are zero on average but depend systematically on the technology gap and ownership structure; encouraging joint ventures with investors holding a smaller technology edge raises the average spillover by about 0.3, based on 1,205 estimates screened against 43 candidate determinants (Irsova and Havranek 2013, World Development) doi.
• Effect of the euro on trade: no detectable effect once publication bias is corrected, while other currency unions raise trade by more than 60% (Havranek 2010, Review of World Economics) doi.
• FDI spillovers to domestic firm productivity (Czech Republic): the meta-analytic estimate is +11% productivity per 10-percentage-point rise in foreign presence (as of 2018; 19% for joint ventures), based on 332 estimates (Hampl et al. 2020, Applied Economics) doi.
• Forward premium puzzle (slope from regressions of spot on forward rates): corrected for publication bias, 0.23-0.45 for developed and 0.95-1.16 for emerging currencies (unbiasedness hypothesis predicts slope of 1), based on 3,643 estimates from 91 studies (Zigraiova et al. 2021, European Economic Review) doi.
• Vertical FDI spillovers to suppliers and buyers: the estimate corrected for publication and misspecification bias is about 9% higher productivity for suppliers per 10-percentage-point rise in foreign presence, small for buyers and none within the sector, based on 3,626 estimates (Havranek and Irsova 2011, Journal of International Economics) doi.

Labor and education economics

• Effect of class size on student achievement: the meta-analytic estimate is about 0 (except in the STAR experiment and classes under 15 students), based on 2,819 estimates from 66 studies (Opatrny et al. 2025, Journal of Labor Economics) doi.
• Effect of working while in school on educational outcomes: the meta-analytic estimate is about 0, slightly negative (more substantive for dropout decisions), based on 861 estimates from 69 studies (Kroupova et al. 2024, Economics of Education Review) doi.
• Elasticity of substitution between native and immigrant workers: corrected for publication bias, about 17 (baseline regional specification; simple bias correction implies 22), based on 1,091 estimates from 41 studies (Kantova et al. 2026) pdf.
• Elasticity of substitution between skilled and unskilled labor: the meta-analytic estimate is 4, with a lower bound of 2 and smaller values in developing countries, based on 682 estimates from 77 studies (Havranek et al. 2024, Review of Economics and Statistics) doi.
• Frisch elasticity of labor supply (intertemporal substitution in hours worked): the meta-analytic estimate is about 0.25 for total hours (0.2 on the intensive margin, near zero on the extensive), based on over 700 estimates for each margin (Elminejad et al. 2023, Review of Economic Dynamics) doi.
• Learning loss from COVID-19 school closures: the meta-analytic estimate is about -0.12 SD, roughly 30% of a school year (Luskova et al. 2026) pdf.
• Tuition-enrollment elasticity (effect of tuition on university enrollment): corrected for publication bias, about 0, based on 443 estimates from 43 studies (Havranek et al. 2018, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics) doi.

Financial economics

• Effect of bank competition on financial stability: corrected for publication bias, about 0, based on 598 estimates from 31 studies (Zigraiova and Havranek 2016, Journal of Economic Surveys) doi.
• Effect of board gender diversity on ESG performance: the meta-analytic estimate is about 0.12 ESG points per 1-pp diversity increase (higher in the Middle East, about zero in Southeast Asia), based on 533 estimates from 106 studies (Hozova et al. 2026) pdf.
• Effect of financial development on economic growth: the meta-analytic estimate is positive but widely varying; studies ignoring endogeneity overstate it, and the effect weakens after the 1980s and in poorer countries, based on 1,334 estimates from 67 studies (Valickova et al. 2015, Journal of Economic Surveys) doi.
• Effect of remittances on economic growth: the meta-analytic finding is positive but economically small (growth-enhancing in Asia but not Africa), based on 538 estimates from 95 studies (Cazachevici et al. 2020, World Development) doi.
• Hedge fund alpha (monthly risk-adjusted return): corrected for publication bias, 30-40 basis points per month (predominantly net of fees: 984 of the 1,019 estimates are net; the companion study puts the best-practice figure near zero once recent data and study design are imposed), based on 1,019 alpha estimates from 74 studies (Yang et al. 2024, Journal of Economic Surveys) doi.
• Size premium in stock returns: corrected for publication bias, 1.72% per year (smallest vs. largest capitalization quintile), based on 1,746 estimates from 102 published studies (Astakhov et al. 2019, Journal of Economic Surveys) doi.
• Stock-price reaction to shareholder activism: corrected for publication bias, 0% to 1.5%, based on 1,973 estimates from 67 studies (Bajzik et al. 2025, Corporate Governance: An International Review) doi.
• Trust, rule of law, and the size premium in stock returns: the meta-analytic finding is stronger rule of law, larger size premium (association in reported estimates, not causal), based on 1,613 estimates from 105 studies and 31 countries (Schwarz et al. 2026) pdf.
• Variation in hedge fund alphas: the main result is that 9 of 34 study characteristics consistently explain it, above all whether alpha is measured gross or net of fees, a gap of 0.439 percentage points a month; expected alphas under best practice are close to zero for all common strategies, based on 1,019 estimates from 74 studies (Yang et al. 2026) pdf.

Meta-research methods

• Bias in meta-analyses of correlations: the methodological finding is that conventional fixed- and random-effects estimators are biased; the UWLS+3 and Hunter-Schmidt estimators correct this (Stanley et al. 2025, Research Synthesis Methods) doi.
• Bias in meta-analyses of partial correlations: the methodological finding is that all such meta-analyses are biased; the UWLS+3 weighted average corrects them (Stanley et al. 2024, Research Synthesis Methods) doi.
• How far corrected effects move from conventional wisdom: the methodological finding is that corrected effects are typically 45-60% smaller, much closer to zero, and sometimes switch sign, based on a systematic review of influential economics meta-analyses against their fields' conventional wisdom (Gechert et al. 2025, Journal of Economic Surveys) doi.
• How to run a modern meta-analysis: a concise, nontechnical, step-by-step guide for practitioners, treating publication bias, p-hacking, and heterogeneity as problems every meta-analyst must confront (Irsova et al. 2024, Journal of Economic Surveys) doi.
• Sensitivity of meta-analysis results to outlier handling: the methodological finding is median shift at most 0.047 (Cohen's d); significance flips in 11.5% of cases (across four pre-registered outlier treatments and two estimators), based on 358 behavioral science meta-analyses (Havranek et al. 2026) pdf.
• Spurious precision in meta-analysis (the MAIVE estimator): the methodological finding is estimated precision can be p-hacked, which can undermine inverse-variance weighting; MAIVE instruments variance with sample size (Irsova et al. 2025, Nature Communications) doi.
• Whether multi-agent AI debate improves feedback on research papers: probably not, at least for meta-analyses in economics; authors of 44 meta-analyses preferred a single frontier-model pass to two multi-agent debate tools, based on a pre-registered, identity-masked experiment (Havranek and Irsova 2026) link.
• Whether the estimator choice matters for partial correlations in practice: the methodological finding is that small-sample biases are negligible and Fisher's z helps with neither them nor publication selection bias; UWLS and Hunter-Schmidt give smaller, arguably less biased means than random effects, based on 172 economics meta-analyses with 63,730 partial correlations from 6,191 papers (Stanley et al. 2026) pdf.