Literature DB >> 22959593

Perceived information gain from randomized trials correlates with publication in high-impact factor journals.

Evangelos Evangelou1, Konstantinos C Siontis, Thomas Pfeiffer, John P A Ioannidis.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether perceived information gain (IG) drives the publication of randomized trials in high-impact factor (IF) journals. STUDY DESIGN AND
SETTING: We estimated IG as the Kullback-Leibler divergence, quantifying how much a new finding changes established knowledge. We used 67 meta-analyses (964 randomized trials) that include one or more trials from any of the three highest IF general medical journals (NEJM, JAMA, and Lancet). We calculated IG for the presence of a non-null effect (IG(1)) and IG for the effect size magnitude (IG(2)).
RESULTS: Across meta-analyses, the summary correlation coefficient of IF was 0.23 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.14, 0.31) for IG(1) and 0.35 (95% CI: 0.25, 0.46) for IG(2). IF also correlated with the P-value of the results (r=0.18), order of publication (r=-0.13), and number of events in the trial (r=0.36). Multivariate regression including IG, order of publication, P-value, and the number of events showed that IG is an independent correlate of IF. IG(2) explained a substantially larger proportion of the variance in IF than IG(1).
CONCLUSION: Publication in journals with high IF is driven by how extensively the results of a study change prior perceptions of the evidence, independently of the statistical significance and size of the study.
Copyright © 2012. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22959593     DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.06.009

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol        ISSN: 0895-4356            Impact factor:   6.437


  14 in total

Review 1.  Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience.

Authors:  Katherine S Button; John P A Ioannidis; Claire Mokrysz; Brian A Nosek; Jonathan Flint; Emma S J Robinson; Marcus R Munafò
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurosci       Date:  2013-04-10       Impact factor: 34.870

2.  Increasing importance of research metrics: Journal Impact Factor and h-index.

Authors:  Victor Grech; Diaa E E Rizk
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2018-03-16       Impact factor: 2.894

Review 3.  Publication bias, with a focus on psychiatry: causes and solutions.

Authors:  Erick H Turner
Journal:  CNS Drugs       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 5.749

4.  Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank.

Authors:  Björn Brembs; Katherine Button; Marcus Munafò
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2013-06-24       Impact factor: 3.169

5.  Bibliometrics of systematic reviews: analysis of citation rates and journal impact factors.

Authors:  Pamela Royle; Ngianga-Bakwin Kandala; Katharine Barnard; Norman Waugh
Journal:  Syst Rev       Date:  2013-09-12

6.  F1000Research: Tics welcomes you to 21st century biomedical publishing.

Authors:  Kevin J Black
Journal:  F1000Res       Date:  2014-11-12

7.  Why Most Clinical Research Is Not Useful.

Authors:  John P A Ioannidis
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2016-06-21       Impact factor: 11.069

8.  Design and Validity of Randomized Controlled Dental Restorative Trials.

Authors:  Gerd Göstemeyer; Uwe Blunck; Sebastian Paris; Falk Schwendicke
Journal:  Materials (Basel)       Date:  2016-05-13       Impact factor: 3.623

9.  Factors influencing citations to systematic reviews in skin diseases: a cross-sectional study through Web of Sciences and Scopus.

Authors:  Juan Manriquez; Karina Cataldo; Isidora Harz
Journal:  An Bras Dermatol       Date:  2015 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 1.896

Review 10.  Publication and other reporting biases in cognitive sciences: detection, prevalence, and prevention.

Authors:  John P A Ioannidis; Marcus R Munafò; Paolo Fusar-Poli; Brian A Nosek; Sean P David
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2014-03-18       Impact factor: 20.229

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.