{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03362068965517241, 'fraction_numerical': 0.013793103448275862, 'mean_word_length': 5.142857142857143, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Connection Is in the Data

We recently published an article examining the existence of a publication bias in the literature on bilingualism and executive functioning and found that results supporting a bilingual advantage were more likely to be published than results challenging such an advantage (de Bruin, Treccani, & Della Sala, 2015). We are not part of a camp that is for or against the bilingual-advantage hypothesis and have in fact published a study supporting this hypothesis ourselves (Treccani, Argyri, Sorace, & Della Sala, 2009). However, we think that publication biases should be taken seriously and that researchers should not shy away from investigating their possible sources (cf. Ferguson & Heene, 2012). In our article, we argued that all the data should be considered, not just selected data supporting a particular theory. Bialystok, Kroll, Green, MacWhinney, and Craik (2015) questioned the importance and reliability of our findings. Bialystok and her colleagues hold very strong views on the argued cognitive advantage of bilingualism. This may be why they label our conclusions, which are dissonant with their views, as “errors.”