Recently Kim (2016) published a meta-analysis on the effects of enrichment programs for gifted students. She found that these programs produced substantial effects for academic achievement (g = 0.96) and socioemotional outcomes (g = 0.55). However, given current theory and empirical research these estimates of the benefits of enrichment programs are unrealistically high. In this manuscript I make the argument that Kim's results--and those from a previous meta-analysis on the same topic (Vaughn, Feldhusen, & Asher, 1991)--are likely distorted by publication bias. Using statistical power analysis, Schimmack's (2012) incredibility index, and an examination of the correlation between sample size and effect size, I present circumstantial evidence that publication bias is distorting the enrichment literature. As a result, gifted education scholars and practitioners do not really know the effectiveness of enrichment programs. I conclude the manuscript by discussing how to reduce publication bias in the gifted education literature.