For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
332
views
46
references
 Top references
cited by
145
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    1
    shares
      0
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Why Current Publication Practices May Distort Science

      other
      Author(s): * , ,
      Publication date (Electronic):
      Journal: PLoS Medicine
      Publisher: Public Library of Science

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          John Ioannidis and colleagues argue that the current system of publication in biomedical research provides a distorted view of the reality of scientific data.

          Related collections

          Most cited references46

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Priorities in Scientific Discovery: A Chapter in the Sociology of Science

          Robert K. Merton (1957)
          Article 0 comments Cited 245 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Publication bias and clinical trials.

            K Dickersin, S. Chan, T.C. Chalmersx … (1987)
            A study was performed to evaluate the extent to which the medical literature may be misleading as a result of selective publication of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with results showing a statistically significant treatment effect. Three hundred eighteen authors of published trials were asked whether they had participated in any unpublished RCTs. The 156 respondents reported 271 unpublished and 1041 published trials. Of the 178 completed unpublished RCTs with a trend specified, 26 (14%) favored the new therapy compared to 423 of 767 (55%) published reports (p less than 0.001). For trials that were completed but not published, the major reasons for nonpublication were "negative" results and lack of interest. From the data provided, it appears that nonpublication was primarily a result of failure to write up and submit the trial results rather than rejection of submitted manuscripts. The results of this study imply the existence of a publication bias of importance both to meta-analysis and the interpretation of statistically significant positive trials.
            Article 0 comments Cited 129 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The Impact Factor Game

              Virginia Barbour (2006)
              The PLoS Medicine editors argue that we need a better measure than the impact factor for assessing the biomedical literature.
              Article 0 comments Cited 128 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): PLoS Med
                Journal ID (publisher-id): pmed
                Journal ID (publisher-id): plme
                Journal ID (pmc): plosmed
                Title: PLoS Medicine
                Publisher: Public Library of Science (San Francisco, USA )
                ISSN (Print): 1549-1277
                ISSN (Electronic): 1549-1676
                Publication date (Print): October 2008
                Publication date (Electronic): 7 October 2008
                Volume: 5
                Issue: 10
                Electronic Location Identifier: e201
                Author notes
                * To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: youngns@ 123456mail.nih.gov
                Article
                Publisher ID: 08-PLME-ES-1446R3
                DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0050201
                PMC ID: 2561077
                PubMed ID: 18844432
                SO-VID: 7cb8cc5e-4fb5-44e8-a83a-d2a8e8b9f8b1
                Copyright © This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Public Domain declaration, which stipulates that, once placed in the public domain, this work may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose.
                History
                Related
                Why Most Published Research Findings Are FalseSelection in Reported Epidemiological Risks: An Empirical AssessmentThe Impact Factor Game
                Page count
                Pages: 5
                Categories
                Subject: Essay
                Subject: Science Policy
                Subject: Medical Journals
                Subject: Health Economics
                Subject: Epidemiology
                Subject: Communication in Health Care
                Subject: Academic Medicine
                Custom metadata
                citation Young NS, Ioannidis JPA, Al-Ubaydli O (2008) Why current publication practices may distort science. PLoS Med 5(10): e201. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0050201

                ScienceOpen disciplines: Medicine
                Data availability:
                ScienceOpen disciplines: Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article