Skip to main content
Log in

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

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bardy, A.H. 1998. Bias in reporting clinical trials. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 46: 147–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chalmers, I. 1990. Unederreporting research is scientific misconduct. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association 263 (10): 1405–1408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). 2006. COPE code of conduct. http://publicationethics.org/code-conduct.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronin, E., and T. Sheldon. 2004. Factors influencing thepublication of health research. International Journal of Technology Assessment 20: 351–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Decullier, E., and F. Chapuis. 2006. Impact of funding on biomedical research: a retrospective cohort study. BMC Public Health 6: 165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egger, M., and G.D. Smith. 1998. Mata-analysis bias in location and selection of studies. BMJ: British Medical Journal 316: 61–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Esterbrook, P.J., J.A. Berlin, R. Gopalan, and D.R. Matthews. 1991. Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet 337 (8746): 867–872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Felson, D. 1992. Bias in meta-analytic research. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 45 (8): 885–892.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granqvist, E. 2015. Why science needs to publish negative results. Elsevier https://www.elsevier.com/authors-update/story/innovation-in-publishing/why-science-needs-to-publish-negative-results.

  • Gundogan, B., and R.A. Agha. 2016. How can we address the publication bias against negative scientific study data? Toxicol Pathology 44 (6): 917.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ICMJE. 2006. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: writing and editing for biomedical publication http://www.icmje.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, C. 2006. Repetitive, duplicate, and redundant publications: a review for authors and readers. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics 29: 505–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney, M. 1977. Publication prejudices: an experimental study of conformity bias in the peer review system. Cognitive Theraphy and Research 1 (2): 161–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newcombe, R.G. 1987. Towards a reduction in publication bias. BMJ: British Medical Journal 295: 656–659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Third International Conference on Grey Literature. 1997. http://opensigle.inist.fr/handle/10068/697932.

  • Thornton, A., and P. Lee. 2000. Publication bias in meta-analysis: its causes and consequences. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 53:207–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 35:348–353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • WMA Declaration of Helsinki. 2013. http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/index.html.pdf?print-media-type&footer-right=[page]/[toPage].

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Special thanks to Viveca Burnette and the Western Institutional Review Board for their generous contributions to this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Perihan Elif Ekmekci.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

No conflict of interest is declared.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ekmekci, P.E. An increasing problem in publication ethics: Publication bias and editors’ role in avoiding it. Med Health Care and Philos 20, 171–178 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-017-9767-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-017-9767-0

Keywords

Navigation