A randomized controlled study of reviewer bias against an unconventional therapy

Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine

Volumn 93, Issue 4, 2000, Pages 164-167

  Resch, K I ^a   Ernst, E ^a,b   Garrow, J ^a  

^a Forsch Inst fur Balneol und K   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF EXETER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

HYDROXYCITRIC ACID; SULFUR;

ARTICLE; DRUG CHOICE; HUMAN; MEDICAL LITERATURE; OBESITY; PEER REVIEW; PUBLICATION;

EID: 0033996860     PISSN: 01410768     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/014107680009300402     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. 1 Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. JAMA 1996;276:637-9
2. 2 Ernst E, Resch KL, Uher EM. Reviewer bias. Ann Intern Med 1992;116:958
3. 3 Link AM. US and non-US submissions. An analysis of reviewer bias. JAMA 1998;280:246-1
4. 4 Nieminen P, Isohanni M. Bias against European journals in medical publication databases. Lancet 1999;353:1592
5. 5 Egger M, Zellweger-Zähner T, Schneider M, et al. Language bias in randomised controlled trials published in English and German. Lancet 1997;350:326-9
6. 6 Ernst E, Saradeth T, Resch KL. Drawbacks of peer review. Nature 1993;363:296
7. 7 Durso TW. Researchers disagree on NIH plan to improve its peer-review process. Scientist 9 Dec 1996
8. 8 Davidoff F. Masking, blinding, and peer review: the blind leading the blinded. Ann Intern Med 1998;128:66-8
9. 9 Goldbeck-Wood S. Evidence on peer review - scientific quality control or smokescreen? BMJ 1999;318:44-5
10. 10 Godlee F, Gale CR, Martyn CN. Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports. JAMA 1998;280:237-40
11. 11 Kent JT. Repertorium der homöopathischen Arzneimittellehre. Stuttgart: Hippokrates Verlag, 1981
12. 12 Roe CA. Critical thinking and belief in the paranormal: a reevaluation. Br J Psychol 1999;90:85-98
13. 13 Feinstein AR. Construction, consent, and condemnation in research of peer review. J Clin Epidemiol 1991;44:339-41
14. 14 Deehan A, Templeton L, Taylor C, Drummond C, Strang J. The effect of cash and other financial inducements on the response rate of general practitioners in a national postal study. Br J Gen Pract 1997;47:87-90
15. 15 Atkinson M, el Guebaly N. Research productivity among PhD faculty members and affiliates responding to the Canadian Association of Professors of Psychiatry and Canadian Psychiatric Association survey. Can J Psychiatry 1996;41:509-12
16. 16 Sanderson M. Survey of candidates taking the MRCP(UK) Part 2 examination. J R Coll Physicians Land 1996;30:523-6
17. 17 Templeton L, Deehan A, Taylor C, Drummond C, Strang J. Surveying general practitioners: does a low response rate matter? Br J Gen Pract 1997;47:91-4
18. 18 Wessely S. Peer review of grant applications: what do we know? Lancet 1998;352:301-5