Literature DB >> 23845183

A two-step manuscript submission process can reduce publication bias.

Yvo M Smulders1.   

Abstract

Much of what is researched is never published. This would not be of great concern if the selection of what we read would occur irrespective of study outcomes. Unfortunately, the reverse is the case: "positive" studies have a much larger chance of acceptance after editorial and peer review than "negative" ones. Several solutions to this problem of publication bias have been discussed or implemented, but none seem to be very effective. In this article, the approach of implementing an editorial and peer-review procedure that is blinded to study outcomes is discussed. This would require a two-step submission procedure of manuscripts: first a version including just the introduction and methods and in some cases followed by a second submission including results and discussion. The pros and cons of such an approach are discussed.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bias; Blinding; Editorial review; Peer review; Publication bias; Statistics

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23845183     DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.03.023

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


  9 in total

1.  Results Blind Science Publishing.

Authors:  Joseph J Locascio
Journal:  Basic Appl Soc Psych       Date:  2017-11-08

2.  Role of editorial and peer review processes in publication bias: analysis of drug trials submitted to eight medical journals.

Authors:  Marlies van Lent; John Overbeke; Henk Jan Out
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-08-12       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 3.  Predictive medicine: outcomes, challenges and opportunities in the Synergy-COPD project.

Authors:  Felip Miralles; David Gomez-Cabrero; Magí Lluch-Ariet; Jesper Tegnér; Marta Cascante; Josep Roca
Journal:  J Transl Med       Date:  2014-11-28       Impact factor: 5.531

4.  The perceived feasibility of methods to reduce publication bias.

Authors:  Harriet A Carroll; Zoi Toumpakari; Laura Johnson; James A Betts
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-10-24       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Conditional equivalence testing: An alternative remedy for publication bias.

Authors:  Harlan Campbell; Paul Gustafson
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-04-13       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 6.  Is positive publication bias really a bias, or an intentionally created discrimination toward negative results?

Authors:  Hunny Sharma; Swati Verma
Journal:  Saudi J Anaesth       Date:  2019 Oct-Dec

7.  Analysis of 567,758 randomized controlled trials published over 30 years reveals trends in phrases used to discuss results that do not reach statistical significance.

Authors:  Willem M Otte; Christiaan H Vinkers; Philippe C Habets; David G P van IJzendoorn; Joeri K Tijdink
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2022-02-18       Impact factor: 8.029

8.  Internal conceptual replications do not increase independent replication success.

Authors:  Richard Kunert
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2016-10

9.  Guiding Principles for the Conduct of Observational Critical Care Research for Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemics and Beyond: The Society of Critical Care Medicine Discovery Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study Registry.

Authors:  Allan J Walkey; R Christopher Sheldrick; Rahul Kashyap; Vishakha K Kumar; Karen Boman; Scott Bolesta; Fernando G Zampieri; Vikas Bansal; Michael O Harhay; Ognjen Gajic
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2020-11       Impact factor: 9.296

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.