The role of electronic journals in reducing publication bias

Medical Informatics and the Internet in Medicine

Volumn 24, Issue 3, 1999, Pages 223-229

  Song, F ^a   Eastwood, A ^a   Gilbody, S ^a   Duley, L ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Clinical trials; Electronic publishing; Publication bias; Systematic review

Indexed keywords

CONFERENCE PAPER; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PUBLICATION;

EID: 0033401460     PISSN: 14639238     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/146392399298429     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (38)

1. DICKERSIN, K., 1990, The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its occurrence. Journal of American Medical Association, 263(10), 1385-1389.
2. SIMES, R. J., 1986, Publication bias: the case for an international registry of clinical trials. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 4(10), 1529-1541.
3. EASTERBROOK, P. J., BERLIN, J. A., GOPALAN, H., and MATTHEWS, D. R., 1991, Publication bias in clinical research. The Lancet, 337(8746), 867-872.
4. DICKERSIN, K., MIN, Y. I., and MEINERT, C. L., 1992, Factors influencing publication of research results. Follow up of applications submitted to two institutional review boards. Journal of American Medical Association, 267(3), 374-378.
5. DICKERSIN, K., and MIN, Y. I., 1993, NIH clinical trials and publication bias. Online Journal of Current Clinical Trials, Doc. No. 50 (3).
6. STERN, J. M., and SIMES, R. J., 1997, Publication bias: evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects. British Medical Journal, 315(7109), 640-645.
7. BEGG, C. B., and BERLIN, J. A., 1988, Publication bias: a problem in interpreting medical data. Journal of Royal Statistical Society A, 151(3), 419-463.
8. KERR, S., TOLLIVER, J., and PETREE, D., 1977, Manuscript characteristics which influence acceptance for management and social science journals. Academy of Management Journal, 20(1), 132-141.
9. KUPFERSMID, J., and FIALA, M., 1991, A survey of attitudes and behaviours of authors who publish in psychology and education journals. American Psychologist, 46(3), 249-250.
10. WEBER, E. J., CALLAHAM, M. L., WEARS, R. L., BARTON, C., and YOUNG, G., 1998, Unpublished research from a medical specialty meeting. Why investigators fail to publish. Journal of American Medical Association, 280(3), 257-259.
11. IOANNIDIS, J., 1998, Effect of the statistical significance of results on the time to completion and publication of randomised efficacy trials. Journal of American Medical Association, 279(4), 281-286.
12. KASSIRER, J. P., and CAMPION, E. W., 1994, Peer review: crude and understudied, but indispensable. Journal of American Medical Association, 272(2), 96-97.
13. The Lancet, http://www.thelancet.com.
14. ABBY, M., MASSEY, M. D., GALANDIUK, S., and POLK, H. C., 1994, Peer review is an effective screening process to evaluate medical manuscripts. Journal of American Medical Association, 272(2), 105-107.
15. ZELEN, M., 1983, Guidelines for publishing papers on cancer clinical trials: responsibilities of editors and authors. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 1(2), 164-169.
16. ANGELL, M., 1989, Negative studies. New England Journal of Medicine, 321(7), 464-466.
17. Fox, T., 1965, Crisis in Communication : The Functions and Future of Medical Journals (London : The Athlone Press).
18. NEWCOMBE, R. G., 1988, Discussion of the paper by Begg and Berlin: publication bias: a problem in interpreting medical data. Journal of Royal Statistical Society A, 151(3), 448-449.
19. JULIAN, D., 1998, Meta-analysis and the meta-epidemiology of clinical research. Registration of trials should be required by editors and registering agencies. British Medical Journal, 316(7127), 311.
20. SMITH, R., 1998, Beyond conflict of interest: transparency is the key. British Medical Journal, 317(7154), 291-292.
21. SMITH, R., and ROBERTS, I., 1997, An amnesty for unpublished trials: send us details on any unreported trials. British Medical Journal, 315(7109), 622.
22. HUTH, E. J., 1995, Electronic publishing in the health sciences. Bulletin of PAHO, 29(1), 81-87.
23. BERO, L., 1997, The electronic future: what might an online scientific paper look like in five years' time? British Medical Journal, 315(7123), 1692.
24. DELAMOTHE, T., 1998, The electronic future of scientific articles. The Lancet, 351(Suppl. 1), 5-6.
25. FLETCHER, R. H., and FLETCHER, S. W., 1998, The future of medical journals in the western world. The Lancet, 352(SII), 30-33.
26. CAMERON, G., 1997, Electronic database and the scientific record. In: The Impact of Electronic Publishing on the Academic Community. An International Workshop Organised by the Academia European and the Wenner-Gren Foundation, I. Butterworth (ed) (London: Portland Press Ltd).
27. CHALMERS, I., 1990, Under-reporting research in scientific misconduct. Journal of American Medical Association, 263(10), 1405-1408.
28. BERLIN, J. A., 1992, Will publication bias vanish in the age of online journals? Online Journal of Current Trials, Jul 8; Doc No. 12 (12).
29. CHALMERS, I., and ALTMAN, D. G., 1998, How can medical journals help prevent poor medical research? Some opportunities presented by electronic publishing. The Lancet, 353, 490-493.
30. SIM, I., and RENNELS, G., 1995, A trial bank model for the publication of clinical trials. In Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer Applications in Medical Care (AMIA, Inc), pp. 863-867 (New Orleans).
31. THE CURRENT SCIENCE GROUP, 1998, Current Controlled Trials. http://www.controlled-trials.com.
32. O'TOOLE, L., 1998, Too many hoops? MRC News Autumn 1998, 79 (Autumn), 1.
33. MCDONALD, S., and CLARKE, M., 1998, 50 years of reporting of randomised controlled trials in general health care journals world-wide: how things have changed. In: 6th International Cochrane Colloquium, Baltimore MD, USA, pp. 52.
34. DELAMOTHE, T., MULLNER, M., and SMITH, R., 1999, Pleasing both authors and readers: a combination of short print articles and longer electronic ones may help us do this. British Medical Journal, 318(7188), 888-889.
35. PIERIE, J. P., WALVOORT, H. C., OVERBEKE, and A. J., 1996, Readers' evaluation of effect of peer review and editing on quality of articles in the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde. The Lancet, 348(9040), 1480-1483.
36. DEEKS, J., GLANVILLE, J., and SHELDON, T., 1996, Undertaking systematic reviews of research on effectiveness : CRD guidelines for those carrying out or commissioning reviews. CRD Report 4, NHS CRD (York: University of York).
37. MULROW, C. D., 1994, Rationale for systematic reviews. British Medical Journal, 309(6954), 597-599.
38. COCHRANE COLLABORATIVE REVIEW GROUPS, 1998, The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. In: The Cochrane Library (Oxford: Update Software).