Reviewer bias against the unconventional? A randomized double-blind study of peer review

Complementary Therapies in Medicine

Volumn 7, Issue 1, 1999, Pages 19-23

  Ernst, E ^a   Resch, K L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EXETER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CELL EXTRACT; METOPROLOL; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG; VOLTIL;

ARTICLE; CATTLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; DOUBLE BLIND PROCEDURE; DRUG SCREENING; MEDICAL LITERATURE; PEER REVIEW; PHYSICIAN; PUBLICATION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REVIEW; SPLEEN CELL;

EID: 0033058778     PISSN: 09652299     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0965-2299(99)80054-5     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Rennie D. More peering into editorial peer review. JAMA 1993;270:2856-2858.
2. Rothmund M. Quality assurance in publications. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 1992;117:1854-1858.
3. Kassirer JP, Campion EW. Peer review. JAMA 1994;272:96-97.
4. de Jong BC, Overbeke AJ. Peer review: is one-eye king? Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 1993;137:17-21.
5. Rennie D. Suspended judgement. Editorial peer review: let us put it on trial. Controlled Clin Trials 1992;13:443-445.
6. Guarding the guardians: research on editorial peer review. Selected proceedings from the First International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication. May 10-12, 1989, Chicago, III. JAMA 1990:263:1317-1441.
7. Anderson A. Peer review. Does it work efficiently? Nature 1989;339:164.
8. Sun M. Peer review comes under peer review. Science 1989;244:910-912.
9. Hokanson JA, Stiernberg CM, McCracken MS, Quinn FB Jr. The reporting of statistical techniques in otolaryngology journals. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1987;113:45-50.
10. Gardner MJ, Bond J. An exploratory study of statistical assessment of papers published in the British Medical Journal. JAMA 1990;263:1355-1357.
11. Ernst E, Resch KL, Uher EM. Reviewer Bias. Ann Int Med 1992;116:958.
12. Ernst E, Saradeth T, Resch KL. Drawbacks of peer review. Nature 1993;363:296.
13. Ernst E, Resch KL. Review bias: A blinded experimental study. J Lab Clin Med 1994;124:178-182.
14. Rennie D, Flanagin A. Publication bias. JAMA 1992;267:411-412.
15. Dickersin K, Min YI, Meinert CL. Factors influencing publication of research results. JAMA 1992;267:374-378.
16. The Burton Goldberg Group. Alternative Medicine. The Definitive Guide. Puyallup WA: Future Med Publ, 1994.
17. O'Connor BB. Healing traditions. Alternative Medicine and the Health Professions. Philadelphia: Pennsylvania Press, 1995.
18. Abbot NC, White AR, Ernst E. Complementary medicine. Nature 1996;381:361.
19. Horrobin DF. Peer review of grant applications: a harbinger for mediocrity in clinical research? Lancet 1996;348:1293-1295.
20. Spaeth GL. Novelty, suppression, and editorial boards. Ophthalmic Surg 1992;23:796.
21. Weinstein S. Science, the icon, versus science, the method. Quis custodes ipsos custodet? (juvenal/satires). In J Neurosci 1990;55:61-70.
22. Resch KL, Ernst E, Garrow J. Does peer review of manuscripts for publication favour orthodox over unconventional treatments? A randomized controlled study (submitted for publication.)