Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 2/2017

01-06-2017 | Review Article

An increasing problem in publication ethics: Publication bias and editors’ role in avoiding it

Author: Perihan Elif Ekmekci

Published in: Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy | Issue 2/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Publication bias is defined as “the tendency on the parts of investigators, reviewers, and editors to submit or accept manuscripts for publication based on the direction or the strength of the study findings.”Publication bias distorts the accumulated data in the literature, causes the over estimation of potential benefits of intervention and mantles the risks and adverse effects, and creates a barrier to assessing the clinical utility of drugs as well as evaluating the long-term safety of medical interventions. The World Medical Association, the International Committee of Medical Journals, and the Committee on Publication Ethics have conferred responsibilities and ethical obligations to editors concerning the avoidance of publication bias. Despite the explicit statements in these international documents, the editors’ role in and ability to avoid publication bias is still being discussed. Unquestionably, all parties involved in clinical research have the ultimate responsibility to sustain the research integrity and validity of accumulated general knowledge. Cooperation and commitment is required at every step of a clinical trial. However, this holistic approach does not exclude effective measures to be taken at the editors’ level. The editors of major medical journals concluded that one precaution that editors can take is to mandate registration of all clinical trials in a public repository as a precondition to submitting manuscripts to journals. Raising awareness regarding the value of publishing negative data for the scientific community and human health, and increasing the number of journals that are dedicated to publishing negative results or that set aside a section in their pages to do so, are positive steps editors can take to avoid publication bias.
Literature
go back to reference Bardy, A.H. 1998. Bias in reporting clinical trials. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 46: 147–150.CrossRef Bardy, A.H. 1998. Bias in reporting clinical trials. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 46: 147–150.CrossRef
go back to reference Begg, C.B., and J.A. Berlin. 1988 Publication bias a problem in interpreting medical data. The Journal of the Royal Statistical Society A 151: 445–463.CrossRef Begg, C.B., and J.A. Berlin. 1988 Publication bias a problem in interpreting medical data. The Journal of the Royal Statistical Society A 151: 445–463.CrossRef
go back to reference Boorman, G.A., J.R. Foster, V.A. Laast, and S. Francke. 2015. Regulatory forum opinion piece: the value of publishing negative scientific study data. Toxicologic Pathology 43 (7): 901–906.CrossRef Boorman, G.A., J.R. Foster, V.A. Laast, and S. Francke. 2015. Regulatory forum opinion piece: the value of publishing negative scientific study data. Toxicologic Pathology 43 (7): 901–906.CrossRef
go back to reference Calnan, M., G.D. Smith, and J.A.C. Sterne. 2006. The publication process itself was the major cause of publication bias in genetic epidemiology. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 59 (12): 1312–1318.CrossRef Calnan, M., G.D. Smith, and J.A.C. Sterne. 2006. The publication process itself was the major cause of publication bias in genetic epidemiology. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 59 (12): 1312–1318.CrossRef
go back to reference Carlson, R.V., K.M. Boyd, and D.J. Webb. 2004. The revision of the Declaration of Helsinki: past, present and future. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 57 (6): 695–713.CrossRef Carlson, R.V., K.M. Boyd, and D.J. Webb. 2004. The revision of the Declaration of Helsinki: past, present and future. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 57 (6): 695–713.CrossRef
go back to reference Chalmers, I. 1990. Unederreporting research is scientific misconduct. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association 263 (10): 1405–1408.CrossRef Chalmers, I. 1990. Unederreporting research is scientific misconduct. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association 263 (10): 1405–1408.CrossRef
go back to reference Chan, A.W., F. Song, A. Vickers, T. Jefferson, K. Dickersin, et al. 2014. Increasing value and reducing waste: addressing inaccessible research. Lancet 383 (9913): 257–266.CrossRef Chan, A.W., F. Song, A. Vickers, T. Jefferson, K. Dickersin, et al. 2014. Increasing value and reducing waste: addressing inaccessible research. Lancet 383 (9913): 257–266.CrossRef
go back to reference Clarke, M. 2004. Doing new research? Don’t forget the old. Nobody should do a trial without reviewing what is known. PLoS Medicine 1: 100–102.CrossRef Clarke, M. 2004. Doing new research? Don’t forget the old. Nobody should do a trial without reviewing what is known. PLoS Medicine 1: 100–102.CrossRef
go back to reference Clarke, M., S. Hopewell, and I. Chalmers. 2010. Clinical trials should begin and end with systematic reviews of relevant evidence: 12 years and waiting. The Lancet 376 (9734): 20–21.CrossRef Clarke, M., S. Hopewell, and I. Chalmers. 2010. Clinical trials should begin and end with systematic reviews of relevant evidence: 12 years and waiting. The Lancet 376 (9734): 20–21.CrossRef
go back to reference Cook, D.J., G.H. Guyatt, G. Ryan, J. Clifton, L. Buckingham, A. Willan, W. McIlroy, and A.D. Oxman. 1993. Should unpublished data be included inmeta-analyses? JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association 269: 2749–2753.CrossRef Cook, D.J., G.H. Guyatt, G. Ryan, J. Clifton, L. Buckingham, A. Willan, W. McIlroy, and A.D. Oxman. 1993. Should unpublished data be included inmeta-analyses? JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association 269: 2749–2753.CrossRef
go back to reference Cronin, E., and T. Sheldon. 2004. Factors influencing thepublication of health research. International Journal of Technology Assessment 20: 351–355.CrossRef Cronin, E., and T. Sheldon. 2004. Factors influencing thepublication of health research. International Journal of Technology Assessment 20: 351–355.CrossRef
go back to reference Davis, R.M., and M. Mullner. 2002. Editorial independence atmedical journals owned by professional associations: a survey of editors. Science and Engineering Ethics 8: 513–528.CrossRef Davis, R.M., and M. Mullner. 2002. Editorial independence atmedical journals owned by professional associations: a survey of editors. Science and Engineering Ethics 8: 513–528.CrossRef
go back to reference De Angelis, C., J.M. Drazen, F.A. Frizelle, C. Haug, J. Hoey, et al. 2004. Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. The New England Journal of Medicine 351 (12): 1250–1251.CrossRef De Angelis, C., J.M. Drazen, F.A. Frizelle, C. Haug, J. Hoey, et al. 2004. Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. The New England Journal of Medicine 351 (12): 1250–1251.CrossRef
go back to reference Decullier, E., and F. Chapuis. 2006. Impact of funding on biomedical research: a retrospective cohort study. BMC Public Health 6: 165.CrossRef Decullier, E., and F. Chapuis. 2006. Impact of funding on biomedical research: a retrospective cohort study. BMC Public Health 6: 165.CrossRef
go back to reference Dickersin, K. 1990. The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its occurrence. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association 263 (10): 1385–1389.CrossRef Dickersin, K. 1990. The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its occurrence. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association 263 (10): 1385–1389.CrossRef
go back to reference Dickersin, K., Y.I. Min, C.L. Meinert. 1992. Factors influencing publication of research results. Follow-up of applications submitted to two institutional review boards. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association 267 (3): 374–378.CrossRef Dickersin, K., Y.I. Min, C.L. Meinert. 1992. Factors influencing publication of research results. Follow-up of applications submitted to two institutional review boards. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association 267 (3): 374–378.CrossRef
go back to reference Dwan, K., D.G. Altman, J.A. Arnaiz, J. Bloom, A.W. Chan, E. Cronin, et al. 2008. Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. PLoS ONE 3 (8): e3081.CrossRef Dwan, K., D.G. Altman, J.A. Arnaiz, J. Bloom, A.W. Chan, E. Cronin, et al. 2008. Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. PLoS ONE 3 (8): e3081.CrossRef
go back to reference Egger, M., and G.D. Smith. 1998. Mata-analysis bias in location and selection of studies. BMJ: British Medical Journal 316: 61–66.CrossRef Egger, M., and G.D. Smith. 1998. Mata-analysis bias in location and selection of studies. BMJ: British Medical Journal 316: 61–66.CrossRef
go back to reference Esterbrook, P.J., J.A. Berlin, R. Gopalan, and D.R. Matthews. 1991. Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet 337 (8746): 867–872.CrossRef Esterbrook, P.J., J.A. Berlin, R. Gopalan, and D.R. Matthews. 1991. Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet 337 (8746): 867–872.CrossRef
go back to reference Felson, D. 1992. Bias in meta-analytic research. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 45 (8): 885–892.CrossRef Felson, D. 1992. Bias in meta-analytic research. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 45 (8): 885–892.CrossRef
go back to reference Frick, M.H., O. Elo, K. Haapa, O.P. Heinonen, P. Heinsalmi, P. Helo, et al. 1987. Helsinki heart study: primary-prevention trial with gemfibrozil in middle-aged men with dyslipidemia. The New England Journal of Medicine 317: 1237–1245.CrossRef Frick, M.H., O. Elo, K. Haapa, O.P. Heinonen, P. Heinsalmi, P. Helo, et al. 1987. Helsinki heart study: primary-prevention trial with gemfibrozil in middle-aged men with dyslipidemia. The New England Journal of Medicine 317: 1237–1245.CrossRef
go back to reference Frick, M.H., O.P. Heinonen, J.K. Huttunen, P. Koskinen, M. Manttari, and V. Manninen. 1993. Efficacy of gemfibrozil in dyslipidaemic subjects with suspected heart disease. An ancillary study in the Helsinki heart study frame population. Annals of Medicine 25: 41–45.CrossRef Frick, M.H., O.P. Heinonen, J.K. Huttunen, P. Koskinen, M. Manttari, and V. Manninen. 1993. Efficacy of gemfibrozil in dyslipidaemic subjects with suspected heart disease. An ancillary study in the Helsinki heart study frame population. Annals of Medicine 25: 41–45.CrossRef
go back to reference Goudie, A.C., A.J. Sutton, D.R. Jones, and A. Donald. 2010. Emprical assessment suggests that existing evidence could be used more fully in designing randomized clinical trials. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 63 (9): 983–989.CrossRef Goudie, A.C., A.J. Sutton, D.R. Jones, and A. Donald. 2010. Emprical assessment suggests that existing evidence could be used more fully in designing randomized clinical trials. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 63 (9): 983–989.CrossRef
go back to reference Gundogan, B., and R.A. Agha. 2016. How can we address the publication bias against negative scientific study data? Toxicol Pathology 44 (6): 917.CrossRef Gundogan, B., and R.A. Agha. 2016. How can we address the publication bias against negative scientific study data? Toxicol Pathology 44 (6): 917.CrossRef
go back to reference Hahn, S., P.R. Williamson, and J.L. Hutton. 2002. Investigation of within-study selective reporting in clinical research: follow-up of applications submitted to a local research ethics committee. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 8: 353–359.CrossRef Hahn, S., P.R. Williamson, and J.L. Hutton. 2002. Investigation of within-study selective reporting in clinical research: follow-up of applications submitted to a local research ethics committee. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 8: 353–359.CrossRef
go back to reference Ioannidis, J.P. 1998. Effect of the statistical significance of results on the time to completion and publication of randomized efficacy trials. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association 279: 281–286.CrossRef Ioannidis, J.P. 1998. Effect of the statistical significance of results on the time to completion and publication of randomized efficacy trials. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association 279: 281–286.CrossRef
go back to reference Johnson, C. 2006. Repetitive, duplicate, and redundant publications: a review for authors and readers. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics 29: 505–509.CrossRef Johnson, C. 2006. Repetitive, duplicate, and redundant publications: a review for authors and readers. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics 29: 505–509.CrossRef
go back to reference Mahoney, M. 1977. Publication prejudices: an experimental study of conformity bias in the peer review system. Cognitive Theraphy and Research 1 (2): 161–175.CrossRef Mahoney, M. 1977. Publication prejudices: an experimental study of conformity bias in the peer review system. Cognitive Theraphy and Research 1 (2): 161–175.CrossRef
go back to reference McGauran, N., B. Wieseler, J. Kreis, Y.B. Schuler, H. Kölsch, and T. Kaiser. 2010. Reporting bias in medical research—a narrative review. Trials 11: 37.CrossRef McGauran, N., B. Wieseler, J. Kreis, Y.B. Schuler, H. Kölsch, and T. Kaiser. 2010. Reporting bias in medical research—a narrative review. Trials 11: 37.CrossRef
go back to reference Misakian, A.L., and L.A. Bero. 1998. Publication bias and research on passive smoking: comparison of published and unpublished studies. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association 280: 250–253.CrossRef Misakian, A.L., and L.A. Bero. 1998. Publication bias and research on passive smoking: comparison of published and unpublished studies. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association 280: 250–253.CrossRef
go back to reference Naci, H., and J.P.A. Ioannidis. 2015. How good is “evidence” from clinical studes of drug effects and why might such evidence fail in the prediction of the clinical utility of the drugs. Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology 55: 169–189.CrossRef Naci, H., and J.P.A. Ioannidis. 2015. How good is “evidence” from clinical studes of drug effects and why might such evidence fail in the prediction of the clinical utility of the drugs. Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology 55: 169–189.CrossRef
go back to reference Newcombe, R.G. 1987. Towards a reduction in publication bias. BMJ: British Medical Journal 295: 656–659.CrossRef Newcombe, R.G. 1987. Towards a reduction in publication bias. BMJ: British Medical Journal 295: 656–659.CrossRef
go back to reference Psaty, B.M., and R.A. Kronmal. 2008. Reporting mortality findings in trials of rofecoxib for Alzheimer disease or cognitive impairment: a case study based on documents from rofecoxib litigation. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association 299 (15): 1813–1817.CrossRef Psaty, B.M., and R.A. Kronmal. 2008. Reporting mortality findings in trials of rofecoxib for Alzheimer disease or cognitive impairment: a case study based on documents from rofecoxib litigation. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association 299 (15): 1813–1817.CrossRef
go back to reference Rimm, E.B., M.J. Stampfer, A. Ascherio, et al. 1993. Vitamin E consumption and the risk of coronary heart disease in men. The New England Journal of Medicine 328 (20): 1450–1456.CrossRef Rimm, E.B., M.J. Stampfer, A. Ascherio, et al. 1993. Vitamin E consumption and the risk of coronary heart disease in men. The New England Journal of Medicine 328 (20): 1450–1456.CrossRef
go back to reference Robinson, K.A., and S.N. Goodman. 2011. A systematic examination of the prior research in reports of randomized, controlled trials. Annals of Internal Medicine 154: 50–55.CrossRef Robinson, K.A., and S.N. Goodman. 2011. A systematic examination of the prior research in reports of randomized, controlled trials. Annals of Internal Medicine 154: 50–55.CrossRef
go back to reference Song F., S. Parekh, L. Hooper, Y.K. Loke, J. Ryder, et al. 2010. Dissemination and publication of researchfindings: an updated review of related biases. Health Technology Assessment 14 (8): 1–193.CrossRef Song F., S. Parekh, L. Hooper, Y.K. Loke, J. Ryder, et al. 2010. Dissemination and publication of researchfindings: an updated review of related biases. Health Technology Assessment 14 (8): 1–193.CrossRef
go back to reference Song, F., L. Hooper, and Y.K. Loke. 2013. Publication bias: what is it? How do we measure it? How do we avoid it? Open Access. Journal of Clinical Trials 5: 71–81. Song, F., L. Hooper, and Y.K. Loke. 2013. Publication bias: what is it? How do we measure it? How do we avoid it? Open Access. Journal of Clinical Trials 5: 71–81.
go back to reference Stephens, N.G., A. Parsons, P.M. Schofield, et al. 1996. Randomised controlled trial of vitamin E in patients with coronary disease: Cambridge Heart Antioxidant Study (CHAOS). Lancet 347 (9004): 781–786.CrossRef Stephens, N.G., A. Parsons, P.M. Schofield, et al. 1996. Randomised controlled trial of vitamin E in patients with coronary disease: Cambridge Heart Antioxidant Study (CHAOS). Lancet 347 (9004): 781–786.CrossRef
go back to reference Tatsioni, A., N.G. Bonitsis, and J.P.A. Ionnidis. 2007. Persistence of contradicted claims in the literarture. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association 298 (21): 2517–2526.CrossRef Tatsioni, A., N.G. Bonitsis, and J.P.A. Ionnidis. 2007. Persistence of contradicted claims in the literarture. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association 298 (21): 2517–2526.CrossRef
go back to reference ter Riet, G., D.A. Korevaar, M. Leenaars, et al. 2012. Publication bias in laboratory animal research: a survey on magnitude, drivers, consequences and potential solutions. PLos ONE 7 (9): e43404.CrossRef ter Riet, G., D.A. Korevaar, M. Leenaars, et al. 2012. Publication bias in laboratory animal research: a survey on magnitude, drivers, consequences and potential solutions. PLos ONE 7 (9): e43404.CrossRef
go back to reference Thornton, A., and P. Lee. 2000. Publication bias in meta-analysis: its causes and consequences. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 53:207–216.CrossRef Thornton, A., and P. Lee. 2000. Publication bias in meta-analysis: its causes and consequences. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 53:207–216.CrossRef
go back to reference Wager, E., S. Fiack, C. Graf, A. Robinson, and I. Rowlands. 2009. Science journal editors’ view on publication ethics: results of an international survey. Journal of Medical Ethics 35:348–353CrossRef Wager, E., S. Fiack, C. Graf, A. Robinson, and I. Rowlands. 2009. Science journal editors’ view on publication ethics: results of an international survey. Journal of Medical Ethics 35:348–353CrossRef
go back to reference Xia, j., J. Wright, and C.E. Adams. 2008. Five large Chinese biomedical bibliographic databases: accessibility and coverage. Health Information and Libraries Journal 25 (1): 55–61.CrossRef Xia, j., J. Wright, and C.E. Adams. 2008. Five large Chinese biomedical bibliographic databases: accessibility and coverage. Health Information and Libraries Journal 25 (1): 55–61.CrossRef
go back to reference Yusuf, S., G. Dagenais, J. Pogue, J. Bosch, and P. Sleight. 2000. Vitamin E supplementation and cardiovascular events in high risk patients. The heart outcomes prevention evaluation study investigators. New England Journal of Medicine 342 (3): 154–160.CrossRef Yusuf, S., G. Dagenais, J. Pogue, J. Bosch, and P. Sleight. 2000. Vitamin E supplementation and cardiovascular events in high risk patients. The heart outcomes prevention evaluation study investigators. New England Journal of Medicine 342 (3): 154–160.CrossRef
go back to reference Zarin, D.A., T. Tse, R. J. Williams, R.M. Califf, and N.C. Ide. 2011. The ClinicalTrials.gov results database—update and key issues. The New England Journal of Medicine 364 (9): 852–860.CrossRef Zarin, D.A., T. Tse, R. J. Williams, R.M. Califf, and N.C. Ide. 2011. The ClinicalTrials.gov results database—update and key issues. The New England Journal of Medicine 364 (9): 852–860.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
An increasing problem in publication ethics: Publication bias and editors’ role in avoiding it
Author
Perihan Elif Ekmekci
Publication date
01-06-2017
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published in
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy / Issue 2/2017
Print ISSN: 1386-7423
Electronic ISSN: 1572-8633
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-017-9767-0

Other articles of this Issue 2/2017

Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 2/2017 Go to the issue

Short literature notices

Short literature notices

Book received

Books received