metricas
covid
Buscar en
Neurología (English Edition)
Toda la web
Inicio Neurología (English Edition) Editorial bias in scientific publications
Journal Information
Vol. 26. Issue 1.
Pages 1-5 (January 2011)
Share
Share
Download PDF
More article options
Vol. 26. Issue 1.
Pages 1-5 (January 2011)
EDITORIAL
Full text access
Editorial bias in scientific publications
Sesgos en la edición de las publicaciones científicas
Visits
1480
J. Matías-Guiu
Corresponding author
inc.hcsc@salud.madrid.org

Corresponding author.
, R. García-Ramos
Servicio de Neurología, Instituto de Neurociencias, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
This item has received
Article information
Abstract
Introduction

Many authors believe that there are biases in scientific publications. Editorial biases include publication bias; which refers to those situations where the results influence the editor's decision, and editorial bias refers to those situations where factors related with authors or their environment influence the decision.

Development

This paper includes an analysis of the situation of editorial biases. One bias is where mainly articles with positive results are accepted, as opposed to those with negative results. Another is latent bias, where positive results are published before those with negative results. In order to examine editorial bias, this paper analyses the influence of where the article originated; the country or continent, academic centre of origin, belonging to cooperative groups, and the maternal language of the authors. The article analyses biases in the editorial process in the publication of funded clinical trials.

Conclusions

Editorial biases exist. Authors, when submitting their manuscript, should analyse different journals and decide where their article will receive adequate treatment.

Keywords:
Scientific publications
Editors
Publication bias
Language
Resumen
Introducción

La existencia de sesgos en la edición científica está en la literatura y es una percepción de muchos autores. Se entiende por sesgos de edición, el sesgo de publicación, que se refiere a aquellas situaciones en las que los resultados influyen en la decisión de la aceptación, y el sesgo editorial, que se refiere a aquellas situaciones que influyen en la decisión de la aceptación de un manuscrito y que están relacionadas con los autores, bien por su origen bien por sus características o por su entorno.

Desarrollo

Se realiza un análisis de la situación de los sesgos editoriales, como los que se desprenden de aceptar en mayor grado artículos con resultados positivos frente a los negativos por el hecho de serlo, o el grado de significación estadística de los mismos,así como el denominado sesgo de la latencia de la publicación, cuando los artículos con resultados positivos se publican antes que aquellos con resultados negativos. Dentro del sesgo editorial, se analiza la influencia del país o el continente de donde procede el artículo, el centro académico de procedencia, haber publicado previamente en la revista, la pertenencia a grandes grupos cooperativos o el idioma materno de los autores, y su influencia en la aceptación. Se analiza específicamente los sesgos producidos en la trayectoria editorial en la publicación de ensayos clínicos financiados.

Conclusiones

La existencia de sesgos en la edición es innegable, tanto de la publicación como editoriales, y desde un punto de vista ideológico sería preferible que no existieran. El autor, cuando remite su manuscrito, debe analizar si el mismo va a tener un trato de equidad o no, y actuar en consecuencia

Palabras clave:
Publicaciones médicas
Editores
Sesgos de publicación
Idioma
Full text is only aviable in PDF
References
[1.]
C.B. Begg, J.A. Berlin.
Publication bias; a problem in interpreting medical data.
J Roy Stat Soc A, 151 (1988), pp. 445-463
[2.]
F. Song, A.J. Eastwood, S. Gilbody, L. Duley, A.J. Sutton.
Publication and related biases.
Health Technol Assess, 4 (2000), pp. 1-115
[3.]
C.M. Olson, D. Rennie, D. Cook, K. Dickersin, A. Flanagin, J.W. Hogan, et al.
Publication bias in editorial decision making.
JAMA, 287 (2002), pp. 2825-2828
[4.]
K.P. Lee, E.A. Boyd, J.M. Holroyd-Leduc, P. Bacchetti, L.A. Bero.
Predictors of publication: characteristics of submitted manuscripts associated with acceptance at major biomedical journals.
Med J Aust, 184 (2006), pp. 621-626
[5.]
J. Matías-Guiu, R. García-Ramos.
Independencia editorial.
Neurología, 25 (2010), pp. 339-342
[6.]
J. Matías-Guiu, R. García-Ramos.
Autor y autoría en las publicaciones médicas.
Neurología, 24 (2009), pp. 1-6
[7.]
J. Matías-Guiu, R. García-Ramos.
Fraude y conductas inapropiadas en las publicaciones científicas.
[8.]
J.G. Ray.
Judging the judges: the role of journal.
QJM, 95 (2002), pp. 769-774
[9.]
J. Matías-Guiu, R. García-Ramos.
El proceso de mejora y decisión de un artículo.
Neurología, 24 (2009), pp. 353-358
[10.]
P.A. Lawrence.
The politics of publication.
Nature, 422 (2003), pp. 259-261
[11.]
J. Matías-Guiu, R. García-Ramos.
El factor de impacto y las decisiones editoriales.
Neurología, 23 (2008), pp. 342-348
[12.]
M. Chew, E.V. Villanueva, M.B. Van Der Weyden.
Life and times of the impact factor: retrospective analysis of trends for seven medical journals (1994–2005) and their Editors’ views.
J R Soc Med, 100 (2007), pp. 142-150
[13.]
K. Dickersin, C.M. Olson, D. Rennie, D. Cook, A. Flanagin, Q. Zhu, et al.
Association between time interval to publication statistical significance.
JAMA, 287 (2002), pp. 2829-2831
[14.]
K. Dickersin, S. Chan, T.C. Chalmers, H.S. Sacks, H.J. Smith.
Publication bias and clinical trials.
Control Clin Trials, 8 (1987), pp. 343-353
[15.]
P.J. Easterbrook, J.A. Berlin, R. Gopalan, D.R. Matthews.
Publication bias in clinical research.
Lancet, 337 (1991), pp. 867-872
[16.]
E. von Elm, A. Röllin, A. Blümle, K. Huwiler, M. Witschi, M. Egger.
Publication and non-publication of clinical trials: longitudinal study of applications submitted to a research ethics committee.
Swiss Med Wkly, 138 (2008), pp. 197-203
[17.]
J.M. Stern, R.J. Simes.
Publication bias: evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects.
BMJ, 315 (1997), pp. 640-645
[18.]
T.D. Sterling, W.L. Rosenbaum, J.J. Weinkam.
Publication decisions revisited - the effect of the outcome of statistical tests on the decision to publish and viceversa.
Am Stat, 49 (1995), pp. 108-112
[19.]
J. Matías-Guiu, E. Moral, R. García-Ramos, E. Martínez-Vila.
The profile of evaluators of a medical publication in relation to the response.
Neurología, 25 (2010), pp. 530-535
[20.]
F. Song, S. Parekh, L. Hooper, Y.K. Loke, J. Ryder, A.J. Sutton, et al.
Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases.
Health Technol Assess, 14 (2010), pp. 1-93
[21.]
C.B. Begg, J.A. Berlin.
Publication bias and dissemination of clinical research.
J Natl Cancer Inst, 81 (1989), pp. 107-115
[22.]
P. Nieminen, M. Isohanni.
Bias against European journals in medical publication Databases.
[23.]
A.M. Link.
US and non-US submissions: an analysis of reviewer bias.
JAMA, 280 (1998), pp. 246-247
[24.]
R. Yousefi-Nooraie, B. Shakiba, S. Mortaz-Hejri.
Country development and manuscript selection bias: a review of published studies.
BMC Med Res Methodol, 6 (2006), pp. 37
[25.]
V. Patel, A. Sumathipala.
International representation in psychiatric literature: survey of six leading journals.
Br J Psychiatry, 178 (2001), pp. 409
[26.]
S. Mendis, D. Yach, R. Bengoa, D. Narvaez, X. Zhang.
Research gap in cardiovascular disease in developing countries.
Lancet, 361 (2003), pp. 2246-2247
[27.]
D. Yach, P. Kenya.
Assessment of epidemiological and HIV/AIDS publications in Africa.
Int J Epidemiol, 21 (1992), pp. 557-560
[28.]
R. Horton.
North and South: bridging the information gap.
Lancet, 355 (2000), pp. 2231-2236
[29.]
J. Keiser, J. Utzinger, M. Tanner, B.H. Singer.
Representation of authors and editors from countries with different human development indexes in the leading literature on tropical medicine: survey of current evidence.
[30.]
J.M. Garfunkel, M.H. Ulshen, H.J. Hamrick, E.E. Lawson.
Effect of institutional prestige on reviewers’ recommendations and editorial decisions.
JAMA, 272 (1994), pp. 137-138
[31.]
W.D. Figg, L. Dunn, D.J. Liewehr, S.M. Steinberg, P.W. Thurman, J.C. Barrett, et al.
Scientific collaboration results in higher citation rates of published articles.
Pharmacotherapy, 26 (2006), pp. 759-767
[32.]
K. Okike, M.S. Kocher, C.T. Mehlman, J.D. Heckman, M. Bhandari.
Nonscientific factors associated with acceptance for publication in The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery.
J Bone Joint Surg Am, 90 (2008), pp. 2432-2437
[33.]
J.S. Ross, C.P. Gross, M.M. Desai, Y. Hong, A.O. Grant, S.R. Daniels, et al.
Effect of blinded peer review on abstract acceptance.
JAMA, 295 (2006), pp. 1675-1680
[34.]
J.R. Lynch, M.R. Cunningham, W.J. Warme, D.C. Schaad, F.M. Wolf, S.S. Leopold.
Commercially funded and United States-based research is more likely to be published; good-quality studies with negative outcomes are not.
J Bone Joint Surg Am, 89 (2007), pp. 1010-1018
[35.]
H. Liss.
Publication bias in the pulmonary/allergy literature: effect of pharmaceutical company sponsorship.
Isr Med Assoc J, 8 (2006), pp. 451-454
[36.]
N. Vivas, F. Bosch.
Analisis bibliometrico de la actividad investigadora de la industria farmaceutica española.
Farm Clin, 8 (1991), pp. 768-776
[37.]
A.V. Kulkarni, J.W. Busse, I. Shams.
Characteristics associated with citation rate of the medical literature.
[38.]
O. Tutarel.
Composition of the editorial boards of leading medical education journals.
BMC Med Res Methodol, 4 (2004), pp. 3
[39.]
S. Saxena, I. Levav, P. Maulik, B. Saraceno.
How international are the editorial boards of leading psychiatry journals?.
[40.]
G. Wilkinson.
How international are the editorial boards of leading psychiatry journals?.
[41.]
J. Boldt, W. Maleck.
Composition of the editorial/advisory boards of major English-language anesthesia/critical care journals.
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand, 44 (2000), pp. 175-179
[42.]
P.G. Shields.
Publication bias is a scientific problem with adverse ethical outcomes: the case for a section for null results.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev, 9 (2000), pp. 771-772
[43.]
R. Hall, C. de Antueno, A. Webber.
Publication bias in the medical literature: a review by a Canadian Research Ethics Board.
Can J Anaesth, 54 (2007), pp. 380-388
[44.]
E.H. Turner, A.M. Matthews, E. Linardatos, R.A. Tell, R. Rosenthal.
Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy.
N Engl J Med, 358 (2008), pp. 252-260
[45.]
H. Schauenburg.
Literature Is Subject to Publication Bias.
Dtsch Arztebl Int, 106 (2009), pp. 320
[46.]
R. Horton.
Medical journals: evidence of bias against the diseases of poverty.
[47.]
E. Jiménez-Contreras, E. Delgado López-Cózar, R. Ruiz-Pérez, V.M. Fernández.
Impact factor rewards affect spanish research.
Nature, 417 (2002), pp. 898
[48.]
G. Winkmann, S. Schlutius, H.G. Schweim.
Citation rates of medical German-language journals in English-language papers-do they correlate with the impact factor, and who cites?.
Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd, 219 (2002), pp. 72-78
[49.]
G. Winkmann, S. Schlutius, H.G. Schweim.
Publication languages of Impact Factor journals and of medical bibliographic databanks.
Dtsch Med Wochenschr, 127 (2002), pp. 131-137
[50.]
P.S. Mueller, N.S. Murali, S.S. Cha, P.F. Erwin, A.K. Ghosk.
The association between impact factors and language of general internal medicine journals.
Swiss Med Wkly, 136 (2006), pp. 441-443
[51.]
G. Gregoire, F. Derderian, J. Le Lorier.
Selecting the language of the publications included in a meta-analysis. Is there a Tower of Babel bias?.
J Clin Epidemiol, 48 (1995), pp. 159-163
[52.]
R. Aleixandre-Benavent, J.C. Valderrama Zurián, A. Alonso-Arroyo, A. Miguel-Dasit, J. González de Dios, J. de Granda Orive.
Español versus inglés como lenguaje de publicacion y factor de impacto de Neurología.
Neurología, 22 (2007), pp. 19-26
[53.]
J. Matías-Guiu.
Las publicaciones cientificas en español.
Rev Neurol, 24 (1996), pp. 506-507
[54.]
J. Matías-Guiu.
Revista de Neurología, el reto de la difusion de las neurociencias en español.
Rev Neurol, 30 (2000), pp. 35-40
[55.]
R.L. Bracho, N. Pescador, M. Reyes.
Repercusion bibliometrica de adoptar el inglés como idioma unico de publicacion.
Rev Invest Clin, 49 (1997), pp. 369-372
[56.]
J.F. Téllez-Zenteno, L.E. Morales-Buenrostro, B. Estañol.
Analisis del factor de impacto de las revistas cientificas latinoamericanas.
Rev Med Chil, 135 (2007), pp. 480-487
[57.]
G. Winkmann, S. Schlutius, H.G. Schweim.
Publication languages of Impact Factor journals and of medical bibliographic databanks.javascript:AL get (this, ‘jour’, ‘Klin Monbl Augenheilkd.’).
Klin Monbl Augenheilkd, 219 (2002), pp. 65-71
[58.]
M. Egger, T. Zellweger-Zähner, M. Schneider, C. Junker, C. Lengeler, G. Antes.
Language bias in randomised controlled trials published in English and German.
[59.]
P. Jüni, F. Holenstein, J. Sterne, C. Bartlett, M. Egger.
Direction and impact of language bias in meta-analyses of controlled trials: empirical study.
Int J Epidemiol, 31 (2002), pp. 115-123
[60.]
A. Thornton, P. Lee.
Publication bias in meta-analysis: its causes and consequences.
J Clin Epidemiol, 53 (2000), pp. 207-216
[61.]
M. Egger, G.D. Smith.
Bias in location and selection of studies.
BMJ, 316 (1998), pp. 61-66
[62.]
D.J. Cook, D.L. Sackett, W.O. Spitzer.
Methodologic guidelines for systematic reviews of randomized control trials in health care from the Potsdam consultation on meta-analysis.
J Clin Epidemiol, 48 (1995), pp. 167-171
[63.]
J. Pogue, S. Yusuf.
Overcoming the limitations of current meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
[64.]
D. Moher, D.J. Cook, S. Eastwood, I. Olkin, D. Rennie, D.F. Stroup.
Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials: the QUOROM statement.
Lancet, 354 (1999), pp. 1896-1900
[65.]
A.-W. Chan, D.G. Altman.
Identifying outcome reporting bias in randomised trials on PubMed: review of publications and survey of authors.
[66.]
B. Djulbegovic, M. Lacevic, A. Cantor, K.K. Fields, C.L. Bennett, J.R. Adams, et al.
The uncertainty principle and industrysponsored research.
[67.]
G. Schott, H. Pachl, U. Limbach, U. Gundert-Remy, K. Lieb, W. Ludwig.
The financing of drug trials by pharmaceutical companies and its consequences: part 2. A qualitative, systematic review of the literature on possible influences on authorship, access to trial data, and trial registration and publication.
Dtsch Arztebl Int, 107 (2010), pp. 295-301
[68.]
B. Moffatt, C. Elliott.
Ghost marketing: pharmaceutical companies and ghostwritten journal articles.
Perspect Biol Med, 50 (2007), pp. 18-31
[69.]
J.S. Ross, K.P. Hill, D.S. Egilman, H.M. Krumholz.
Guest authorship and ghostwriting in publications related to rofecoxib: a case study of industry documents from rofecoxib litigation.
JAMA, 299 (2008), pp. 1800-1812
[70.]
C.D. DeAngelis, P.B. Fontanarosa.
Impugning the integrity of medical science: the adverse effects of industry influence.
JAMA, 299 (2008), pp. 1833-1835
[71.]
M. Lagnado.
Increasing the trust in scientific authorship.
Br J Psychiatry, 183 (2003), pp. 3-4
[72.]
J.C. Bevan.
Ethical behaviour of authors in biomedical journalism.
Ann R Coll Physicians Surg Can, 35 (2002), pp. 81-85
[73.]
T. Bodenheimer.
Uneasy alliance-clinical investigators and the pharmaceutical industry.
New Engl J Med, 342 (2000), pp. 1539-1544
[74.]
K.A. Schulman, D.M. Seils, J.W. Timbie, J. Sugarman, L.A. Dame, K.P. Weinfurt, et al.
A national survey of provisions in clinicaltrial agreements between medical schools and industry sponsors.
N Engl J Med, 347 (2002), pp. 1335-1341
[75.]
S.A. Halperin, D. Scheifele, B. Duval, B. Ward.
Conforming to ICMJE principles.
CMAJ, 173 (2005), pp. 1358-1359
[76.]
A. Fugh-Berman.
The corporate coauthor.
J Gen Intern Med, 20 (2005), pp. 546-548
[77.]
Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Writing and Editing for Biomedical Publication 10 de octubre del 2010. Disponible en: www.icmje.org.
[78.]
CBE.
Who is an author?.
Science Editor, 23 (2000), pp. 111
[79.]
S.M. Mojon-Azzi, X. Jiang, U. Wagner, D.S. Mojon.
Journals: redundant publications are bad news.
Nature, 421 (2003), pp. 209
[80.]
P.C. Gøtzsche.
Multiple publication of reports of drug trials.
Eur J Clin Pharm, 36 (1989), pp. 429-432
[81.]
P. Huston, D. Moher.
Redundancy, disaggregation, and the integrity of medical research.
Lancet, 347 (1996), pp. 1024-1026
[82.]
A. Leizorovicz, M.C. Haugh, J.P. Boissel.
Meta-analysis and multiple publication of clinical reports.
Lancet, 340 (1992), pp. 1102-1103
[83.]
D. Rennie.
Fair conduct and fair reporting of clinical trials.
JAMA, 282 (1999), pp. 1766-1768
[84.]
A.R. Jadad, R.A. Moore, D. Carroll, C. Jenkinson, D.J. Reynolds, D.J. Gavaghan, et al.
Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary?.
Control Clin Trials, 17 (1996), pp. 1-12
[85.]
M. Fisher, S.B. Friedman, B. Strauss.
The effects of blinding on acceptance of research papers by peer review.
JAMA, 272 (1994), pp. 143-146
[86.]
A. Yankauer.
How blind is blind review?.
Am J Public Health, 81 (1991), pp. 843-845
[87.]
J.E. Bekelman, Y. Li, C.P. Gross.
Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review.
JAMA, 289 (2003), pp. 454-465
[88.]
J. Lexchin, L.A. Bero, B. Djulbegovic, O. Clark.
Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review.
BMJ, 326 (2003), pp. 1117-1167
[89.]
G. Schott, H. Pachl, U. Limbach, U. Gundert-Remy, W.D. Ludwig, K. Lieb.
The financing of drug trials by pharmaceutical companies and its consequences. Part 1: a qualitative, systematic review of the literature on possible influences on the findings, protocols, and quality of drug trials.
Dtsch Arztebl Int, 107 (2010), pp. 279-285
[90.]
A.W. Chan, A. Hrobjartsson, M.T. Haahr, P.C. Gotzsche, D.G. Altman.
Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles.
JAMA, 291 (2004), pp. 2457-2465
[91.]
S. Golder, Y.K. Loke.
Is there evidence for biased reporting of published adverse effects data in pharmaceutical industry funded studies?.
Br J Clin Pharmacol, 66 (2008), pp. 767-773
Copyright © 2011. Sociedad Española de Neurología
Download PDF
Article options
es en pt

¿Es usted profesional sanitario apto para prescribir o dispensar medicamentos?

Are you a health professional able to prescribe or dispense drugs?

Você é um profissional de saúde habilitado a prescrever ou dispensar medicamentos