Author:
Chalmers Iain,Dickersin Kay
Abstract
Stephen Senn challenges Ben Goldacre’s assertion in ‘Bad Pharma’ that biased editorial acceptance of reports with ‘positive’ findings is not a cause of biased under-reporting of research. We agree with Senn that biased editorial decisions may contribute to reporting bias, but Senn ignores the evidence that biased decisions by researchers to submit reports for possible publication are the main causes of the problem.
Subject
General Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics,General Immunology and Microbiology,General Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology,General Medicine
Reference23 articles.
1. Bad Pharma.;B Goldacre,2012
2. Misunderstanding publication bias: editors are not blameless after all [v1; ref status: indexed, http://f1000r.es/YvAwwD].;S Senn;F1000 Research.,2012
3. Recognising, investigating and dealing with incomplete and biased reporting of clinical research: from Francis Bacon to the World Health Organisation.;K Dickersin
4. Publication bias in gastroenterological research - a retrospective cohort study based on abstracts submitted to a scientific meeting.;A Timmer;BMC Med Res Methodol.,2002
5. Bias, subjectivity, chance, and conflict of interest in editorial decisions.;F Godlee
Cited by
21 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献