What is it about?
Various reviews have found that the probability of acceptance of a negative study is the same as a positive one, They have then wrongly concluded that this implies that there is no bias against negative studies.
Featured Image
Why is it important?
The problem is that if authors anticipate that editors are biased against negative studies they will only submit negative studies that are of exceptional quality. Thus one needs to control for quality of submitted study as a confounder. Where this has been done it has been found that submitted negative studies are of higher quality than positive ones.
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: Misunderstanding publication bias: editors are not blameless after all, F1000Research, December 2012, Faculty of 1000, Ltd.,
DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.1-59.v1.
You can read the full text:
Resources
It's publishing Jim, but not as we know it
Blog post discussing the future of publishing clinical trial results
Positively negative. Are editors to blame for publication bias
Video describing my career as a medical statistician but also giving publication bias for clinical trials as an example of the sort of thing I am interested in. The analogy of sex-bias in interviewing for promotion is given.
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page
