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

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.

A systematic review and meta-analyses of risk factors associated with lameness in dairy cows

“…Even though systematic reviews reflect the best evidence, the approach is susceptible to the introduction of bias owing to the retrospective character of the analysis and the study selection process [43, 44]. Bias can enter in various forms and at all stages throughout the review process [45–47]. Therefore, minimization and prevention of bias was attempted on several levels in the present study.…”

Web-Based Interventions Supporting Adolescents and Young People With Depressive Symptoms: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…The results of this study should be considered in the light of its limitations. We only included papers from scientific journals that had been written in English, which may have caused relevant studies written in other languages or existing in gray literature to have been left out [ 65 ]. Our review is, therefore, biased toward positive results and western countries.…”

Increasing the Competence of Scientific Publications of Technology-based Primary School Teachers in Indonesia

“…The teachers needed to learn the writings or articles that have been published [7]. The teachers also needed to consider the ethics of scientific publication and data must be accurate, avoid counterfeits [15]. The teachers also needed to work together with colleagues to receive advice from colleagues.…”

“…The teachers also needed to work together with colleagues to receive advice from colleagues. The recognition of colleagues was really needed in the scientific publication [15]. The training activities could increase the amount of the teachers that do scientific publication, because scientific publications of the teachers are still scarce.…”