Medical journal peer review: Process and bias

Pain Physician

Volumn 18, Issue 1, 2015, Pages E1-E14

  Manchikanti, Laxmaiah ^a,b   Kaye, Alan David ^c   Boswell, Mark ^d   Hirsch, Joshua A ^e  

^a PAIN MANAGEMENT CENTER OF PADUCAH   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE   (United States)

^c LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER   (United States)

^d University of Louisville School of Medicine   (United States)

^e MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

Blinded peer review; Peer review bias; Peer review process; Scientific misconduct; Scientific publications; Scientific research

Indexed keywords

CONFIRMATION BIAS; CONFLICT OF INTEREST; EDITOR; INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH; MEDICAL LITERATURE; PEER REVIEW; PEER REVIEW ORGANIZATION; PROFESSIONALISM; PUBLICATION; PUBLISHING; REVIEW; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT; SYSTEMATIC ERROR; HUMAN; PROCEDURES; STANDARDS; STATISTICAL BIAS;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); CONFLICT OF INTEREST; HUMANS; PEER REVIEW; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC;

EID: 84922965364     PISSN: 15333159     EISSN: 21501149     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (156)

1. Manchikanti L, Falco FJE, Singh V, Benyamin RM, Racz GB, Helm II S, Caraway DL, Calodney AK, Snook LT, Smith HS, Gupta S, Ward SP, Grider JS, Hirsch JA. An update of comprehensive evidence-based guidelines for interventional techniques of chronic spinal pain. Part I: Introduction and general considerations. Pain Physician 2013; 16:S1-S48.
2. Gagliardi AR, Brouwers MC., Integrating guideline development and implementation: Analysis of guideline development manual instructions for generating implementation advice. Implement Sci 2012; 7:67.
3. Public Law No: 111-5. H.R. 1. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 signed by President Barack Obama on 2/17/2009.
4. Hirsch JA, Schaefer PW, Romero JM, Rabinov JD, Sanelli PC, Manchikanti L. Comparative effectiveness research. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2014; 35:1677-1680.
5. US National Library of Medicine. National Institute of Health. PubMed. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed
6. Bastian H, Glasziou P, Chalmers I., Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: How will we ever keep up? PLoS Med 2010; 7:e1000326.
7. Cochrane AL. 1931-1971: A critical review, with particular reference to the medical profession. In: Medicines For The Year 2000. Office of Health Economics, London, 1979, pp 1-11.
8. Elliott J, Sim I, Thomas J, Owens N, Dooley G, Riis J, Wallace B, Thomas J, Noel-Storr A, Rada G, Struthers C, Howe T, MacLehose H, Brandt L, Kunnamo I, Mavergames C. CochraneTech: Technology and the future of systematic reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014; 9:ED000091.
9. Benos DJ, Bashari E, Chaves JM, Gaggar A, Kapoor N, LaFrance M, Mans R, Mayhew D, McGowan S, Polter A, Qadri Y, Sarfare S, Schultz K, Splittgerber R, Stephenson J, Tower C, Walton RG, Zotov A. The ups and downs of peer review. Adv Physiol Educ 2007; 31:145-152.
10. Brown T. Sense About Science. Peer Review and the Acceptance of New Scientific Ideas. May 2004. www.senseaboutscience.org/data/files/resources/17/peerReview.pdf
11. Macrina FL. Authorship and peer review. In: Marcrina FL (ed). Scientific Integrity: Text and Cases in Responsible Conduct of Research. 3rd ed.. ASM, Washington, DC, 2005.
12. Kronick DA. Peer review in 18th-century scientific journalism. JAMA 1990; 263:1321-1322.
13. Rennie D. Editorial peer review: Its development and rationale. In: Godlee R, Jefferson T (eds). Peer Review in Health Sciences. BMJ Books, London, 1999.
14. Burnham JC. The evolution of editorial peer review. JAMA 1990; 263:1323-1329.
15. Hargens LL. Variation in journal peer review systems. Possible causes and consequences. JAMA 1990; 263:1348-1352.
16. Knoll E. The communities of scientists and journal peer review. JAMA 1990; 263:1330-1332.
17. Ingelfinger FJ. Peer review in biomedical publication. Am J Med 1974; 56:686-692.
18. Weller AC. Editorial peer review in US medical journals. JAMA 1990; 263:1344-1347.
19. Cressey D. Journals weigh up doubleblind peer review. Nature, July 2014. www.nature.com/news/journals-weighup-double-blind-peer-review-1.15564
20. Lee CJ, Sugimoto CR, Zhang G, Cronin B. Bias in peer review. J Am Soc Inform Scien Tech 2013; 64:2-17.
21. Song F, Hooper L, Loke YK. Publication Bias: What is it? How do we measure it? How do we avoid it? J Clin Trials 2013; 5:71-81.
22. Bohannon J. Who’s afraid of peer review? Science 2013; 342:60-65.
23. International Council for Science, Committee on Freedom and Responsibility in the Conduct of Science. Advisory note “Bias in science publishing.” September2011. www.icsu.org/publications/cfrsstatements/bias-in-science-publishing/
24. Smith R. Peer review: A flawed process at the heart of science and journals. J R Soc Med 2006; 99:178-182.
25. Kastrenakes J. Scientific journal retracts 60 papers linked to fraudulent peer-review ring. The Verge, July 14, 2014. www.theverge.com/2014/7/14/5898711/sagevibration-control-journal-retracts-60-papers-fraud-ring
26. SAGE press release. SAGE statement on Journal of Vibration and Control. July 8, 2014. www.uk.sagepub.com/aboutus/press/2014/jul/7.htm
27. Clark RK. Peer review: A view based on recent experiences as an author and reviewer. Br Dent J 2012; 213:153-154.
28. Veríssimo D, Roberts DL. The academic welfare state: Making peer-review count. Trends Ecol Evol 2013; 28:623-624.
29. Cantekin EI, McGuire TW, Potter RL. Biomedical information, peer review, and conflict of interest as they influence public health. JAMA 1990; 263:1427-1430.
30. Twaij H, Oussedik S, Hoffmeyer P. Peer review. Bone Joint J 2014; 96-B:436-441.
31. Boden M. Peer review: A report to the Advisory Board for the Research Councils from the Working Group on Peer Review. 1990.
32. Research Councils UK. Report of the Research Councils UK Efficiency and Effectiveness of Peer Review Project. October 2006. www.rcuk.ac.uk/RCUK-prod/assets/documents/documents/rcukprreport.pdf
33. Kassirer JP, Campion EW,. Peer review. Crude and understudied, but indispensable. JAMA 1994; 272:96-97.
34. Stehbens WE. Basic philosophy and concepts underlying scientific peer review. Med Hypotheses 1999; 52:31-36.
35. Benos DJ, Fabres J, Farmer J, Gutierrez JP, Hennessy K, Kosek D, Lee JH, Olteanu D, Russell T, Shaikh F, Wang K. Ethics and scientific publication. Adv Physiol Educ 2005; 29:59-74.
36. Lock S, Smith J. What do peer reviewers do? JAMA 1990; 263:1341-1343.
37. Yankauer A. Who are the peer reviewers and how much do they review? JAMA 1990; 263:1338-1340.
38. Rumsey TS. One editor’s views on conflict of interest. J Anim Sci 1999; 77:2379-2383.
39. Ceci SJ, Peters DP. Peer review–a study of reliability. Change 1982; 14:44-48.
40. Garfunkel JM, Ulshen MH, Hamrick HJ, Lawson EE. Effect of institutional prestige on reviewers’ recommendations and editorial decisions. JAMA 1994; 272:137-138.
41. Hojat M, Gonnella JS, Caelleigh AS. Impartial judgment by the “gate-keepers” of science: Fallibility and accountability in the peer review process. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2003; 8:75-96.
42. Bunner C, Larson EL. Assessing the quality of the peer review process: Author and editorial board member perspectives. Am J Infect Control 2012; 40:701-704.
43. Merton RK. The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1973.
44. Lamont M. How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 2009.
45. Mallard G, Lamont M, Guetzkow J. Fairness as appropriateness: Negotiating epistemological differences in peer review. Scien Technol Human Values 2009; 34:573-606.
46. Jayasinghe UW, Marsh HW, Bond N. A multilevel cross classified modelling approach to peer review of grant proposals: The effects of assessor and researcher attributes on assessor ratings. J Royal Statist Soc 2003; 166:279-300.
47. Gilbert JR, Williams ES, Lundberg GD. Is there gender bias in JAMA’s peer review process? JAMA 1994; 272:139-142.
48. Wing DA, Benner RS, Petersen R, Newcomb R, Scott JR. Differences in editorial board reviewer behavior based on gender. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 2010; 19:1919-1923.
49. Wood FQ. The Peer Review Process. National Board of Employment, Education and Training, Canberra, 1997.
50. Marsh HW, Jayasinghe UW, Bond NW. Improving the peer-review process for grant applications: Reliability, validity, bias, and generalizability. Am Psychol 2008; 63:160-168.
51. Travis GDL, Collins HM. New light on old boys: Cognitive and institutional particularism in the peer review system. Scien Technol Human Values 1991; 16:322-341.
52. Hull D. Science as a Process. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1988.
53. Ferber MA. Citations: Are they an objective measure of scholarly merit? Signs 1986; 11:381-389.
54. Lee CJ, Schunn CD. Social biases and solutions for procedural objectivity. Hypatia: J Fem Philos 2011; 26:352-373.
55. Nickerson RS. Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Rev General Psych 1998; 2:175-220.
56. Jelicic M, Merckelbach H. Peer-review: Let’s imitate the lawyers! Cortex 2002; 38:406-407.
57. Lacey H. Is Science Value Free? Values and Scientific Understanding. Routledge, New York, 1999.
58. Ernst E, Resch KL, Uher EM. Reviewer bias. Ann Intern Med 1992; 116:958.
59. Mahoney MJ. Publication preferences: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system. Cognitive Ther Res 1977; 1:161-175.
60. Frank E. Editors’ requests of reviewers: A study and a proposal. Prev Med 1996; 25;102-104.
61. Horrobin DF. The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation. JAMA 1990; 263:1438-1441.
62. Luukkonen T. Conservatism and risktaking in peer review: Emerging ERC practices. Res Eval 2012; 21:48-60.
63. Bardy AH. Bias in reporting clinical trials. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1998; 46:147-150.
64. Dickersin K, Min YI, Meinert CL. Factors influencing publication of research results: Follow-up of applications submitted to two institutional review boards. JAMA 1992; 267:374-378.
65. Fanelli D. Do pressures to publish increase scientists’ bias? An empirical support from US States data. PLoS ONE 2010; 5:e10271.
66. Ioannidis JP. Effect of the statistical significance of results on the time to completion and publication of randomized efficacy trials. JAMA 1998; 279:281-286.
67. Ioannidis JP. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med 2005; 2:e124.
68. Palmer AR. Quasi-replication and the contract of error: Lessons from sex ratios, heritabilities and fluctuating asymmetry. Ann Rev Ecol System 2000; 31:441-480.
69. Gerber AS, Malhotra N. Publication bias in empirical sociological research — Do arbitrary significance levels distort published results? Sociolog Methods Res 2008; 37:3-30.
70. Chan AW, Hróbjartsson A, Haahr MT, Gøtzsche PC, Altman DG. Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: Comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA 2004; 291:2457-2465.
71. Olson CM, Rennie D, Cook D, Dickersin K, Flanagin A, Hogan JW, Zhu Q, Reiling J, Pace B. Publication bias in editorial decision making. JAMA 2002; 287:2829-2831.
72. Dickersin K. The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its occurrence. JAMA 1990; 263:1385-1389.
73. Easterbrook PJ, Berlin JA, Gopalan R, Matthews DR. Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet 1991; 337:867-872.
74. Friedly JL, Comstock BA, Turner JA, Heagerty PJ, Deyo RA, Sullivan SD, Bauer Z, Bresnahan BW, Avins AL, Nedeljkovic SS, Nerenz DR, Standaert C, Kessler L, Akuthota V, Annaswamy T, Chen A, Diehn F, Firtch W, Gerges FJ, Gilligan C, Goldberg H, Kennedy DJ, Mandel S, Tyburski M, Sanders W, Sibell D, Smuck M, Wasan A, Won L, Jarvik JG. A randomized trial of epidural glucocorticoid injections for spinal stenosis. N Engl J Med 2014; 371:11-21.
75. Friedly JL, Bresnahan BW, Comstock B, Turner JA, Deyo RA, Sullivan SD, Heagerty P, Bauer Z, Nedeljkovic SS, Avins AL, Nerenz D, Jarvik JG. Study protocol-Lumbar Epidural steroid injections for Spinal Stenosis (LESS): A double-blind randomized controlled trial of epidural steroid injections for lumbar spinal stenosis among older adults. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2012; 29:48.
76. Buchbinder R, Osborne RH, Ebeling PR, Wark JD, Mitchell P, Wriedt C, Graves S, Staples MP, Murphy B. A randomized trial of vertebroplasty for painful osteoporotic vertebral fractures. N Engl J Med 2009; 361:557-568.
77. Kallmes DF, Cornstock BA, Heagerty PJ, Turner JA, Wilson DJ, Diamond TH, Edwards R, Gray LA, Stout L, Owen S, Hollingworth W, Ghdoke B, Annesley-Williams DJ, Ralston SH, Jarvik JG. A randomized trial of vertebroplasty for osteoporotic spinal fractures. N Engl J Med 2009; 361:569-579.
78. Cohen SP, Williams KA, Kurihara C, Nguyen C, Shields C, Kim P, Griffith SR, Larkin TM, Crooks M, Williams N, Morlando B, Strassels SA. Multicenter, randomized, comparative cost-effectiveness study comparing 0, 1, and 2 diagnostic medial branch (facet joint nerve) block treatment paradigms before lumbar facet radiofrequency denervation. Anesthesiology 2010; 113:395-405.
79. Bicket M, Gupta A, Brown CH, Cohen SP. Epidural injections for spinal pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the “control” injections in randomized controlled trials. Anesthesiology 2013; 119:907-931.
80. Cohen SP, Hameed H, Kurihara C, Pasquina PF, Patel AM, Babade M, Griffith SR, Erdek ME, Jamison DE, Hurley RW. The effect of sedation on the accuracy and treatment outcomes for diagnostic injections: A randomized, controlled, crossover study. Pain Med 2014;15:588-602.
81. Cohen SP, White RL, Kurihara C, Larkin TM, Chang A, Griffith SR, Gilligan C, Larkin R, Morlando B, Pasquina PF, Yaksh TL, Nguyen C. Epidural steroids, etanercept, or saline in subacute sciatica: A multicenter, randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 2012; 156:551-559.
82. Cohen SP, Hayek S, Semenov Y, Pasquina PF, White RL, Veizi E, Huang JH, Kurihara C, Zhao Z, Guthmiller KB, Griffith SR, Verdun AV, Giampetro DM, Vorobeychik Y. Epidural steroid injections, conservative treatment, or combination treatment for cervical radicular pain: A multicenter, randomized, comparative-effectiveness study. Anesthesiology 2014; 121:1045-1055.
83. Chou R, Huffman L. Guideline for the Evaluation and Management of Low Back Pain: Evidence Review. American Pain Society, Glenview, IL, 2009. www.americanpainsociety.org/uploads/pdfs/LBPEvidRev.pdf
84. Chou R, Atlas SJ, Stanos SP, Rosenquist RW. Nonsurgical interventional therapies for low back pain: A review of the evidence for an American Pain Society clinical practice guideline. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2009; 34:1078-1093.
85. Pinto RZ, Maher CG, Ferreira ML, Hancock M, Oliveira VC, McLachlan AJ, Koes B, Ferreira PH. Epidural corticosteroid injections in the management of sciatica: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 2012; 157:865-877.
86. Karppinen J, Malmivaara A, Kurunlahti M, Kyllönen E, Pienimäki T, Nieminen P, Ohinmaa A, Tervonen O, Vanharanta H. Periradicular infiltration for sciatica: A randomized controlled trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2001; 26:1059-1067.
87. Staal JB, de Bie RA, de Vet HC, Hildebrandt J, Nelemans P. Injection therapy for subacute and chronic low back pain: An updated Cochrane review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2009; 34:49-59.
88. Iversen T, Solberg TK, Romner B, Wilsgaard T, Twisk J, Anke A, Nygaard O, Hasvold T, Ingebrigtsen T. Effect of caudal epidural steroid or saline injection in chronic lumbar radiculopathy: Multicentre, blinded, randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2011; 343:d5278.
89. Bresnahan BW, Rundell SD, Dagadakis MC, Sullivan SD, Jarvik JG, Nguyen H, Friedly JL. A systematic review to assess comparative effectiveness studies in epidural steroid injections for lumbar spinal stenosis and to estimate reimbursement amounts. PM R 2013; 5:705-714.
90. Chou R, Atlas SJ, Loeser JD, Rosenquist RW, Stanos SP. Guideline warfare over interventional therapies for low back pain: Can we raise the level of discourse? J Pain 2011; 12:833-839.
91. Manchikanti L, Benyamin RM, Falco FJE, Caraway DL, Datta S, Hirsch JA. Guidelines warfare over interventional techniques: Is there a lack of discourse or straw man? Pain Physician 2012; 15:E1-E26.
92. Manchikanti L. Improper use of epidural injections for lumbar spinal stenosis. Comment RE: Friedly JL, Comstock BA, Turner JA, Heagerty PJ, Deyo RA, Sullivan SD, Bauer Z, Bresnahan BW, Avins AL, Nedeljkovic SS, Nerenz DR, Standaert C, Kessler L, Akuthota V, Annaswamy T, Chen A, Diehn F, Firtch W, Gerges FJ, Gilligan C, Goldberg H, Kennedy DJ, Mandel S, Tyburski M, Sanders W, Sibell D, Smuck M, Wasan A, Won L, Jarvik JG. A randomized trial of epidural glucocorticoid injections for spinal stenosis. N Engl J Med 2014; 371:11-21.
93. Manchikanti L, Benyamin RM, Candido KD, Hirsch JA. Cohen et al reach inappropriate conclusions on the effect of sedation on the accuracy and treatment outcomes for diagnostic injections. Letter to the editor RE: Cohen SP, Hameed H, Kurihara C, et al. The effect of sedation on the accuracy and treatment outcomes for diagnostic injections: A randomized, controlled, crossover study. Pain Med 2014; 15:588-602. Pain Med 2014; Oct 7. [Epub ahead of print].
94. Manchikanti L, Falco FJE, Hirsch JA. Letter to the editor RE: Udeh BL, Costandi S, Dalton JE, et al. The 2-year cost effectiveness of 3 options to treat lumbar spinal stenosis patients. Pain Pract 2014; 14:e161-e162.
95. Manchikanti L, Falco FJE, Hirsch JA. Letter to the editor RE: Nuckols TK, Anderson L, Popescu I et al. A systematic review and critical appraisal of guidelines for chronic pain. Ann Intern Med 2014; 160:737.
96. Manchikanti L, Kaye AD, Hirsch JA. Letter to the editor RE: Epstein NE. The risks of epidural and transforaminal steroid injections in the spine: Commentary and a comprehensive review of the literature. Surg Neurol Int 2013; 4:S74-S93. Surg Neurol Int 2014; 5:38.
97. Manchikanti L, Datta S, Hirsch JA. Letter to the editor RE: Bresnahan BW, Rundell SD, Dagadakis MC, et al. A systematic review to assess comparative effectiveness studies in epidural steroid injections for lumbar spinal stenosis and to estimate reimbursement amounts. PMR 2013; 5:705-714. PM R 2014; 6:463-464.
98. Carette S, Marcoux S, Truchon R, Grondin C, Gagnon J, Allard Y, Latulippe M. A controlled trial of corticosteroid injections into facet joints for chronic low back pain. N Engl J Med 1991; 325:1002-1007.
99. Carette S, Leclaire R, Marcoux S, Morin F, Blaise GA, St-Pierre A, Truchon R, Parent F, Levesque J, Bergeron V, Montminy P, Blanchette C. Epidural corticosteroid injections for sciatica due to herniated nucleus pulposus. N Engl J Med 1997; 336:1634-1640.
100. Jamison DE, Hsu E, Cohen SP. Epidural adhesiolysis: An evidence-based review. J Neurosurg Sci 2014; 58:65-76.
101. Lee F, Jamison DE, Hurley RW, Cohen SP. Epidural lysis of adhesions. Korean J Pain 2014; 27:3-15.
102. Manchikanti L, Candido KD, Singh V, Hirsch JA. Letter to the editor RE: Jamison DE et al. Epidural adhesiolysis: An evidence-based review. J Neurosurg Sci 2014; 58:65-76. J Neurosurg Sci 2014; in press.
103. Epstein NE. The risks of epidural and transforaminal steroid injections in the spine: Commentary and a comprehensive review of the literature. Surg Neurol Int 2013; 4:S74-S93.
104. Manchikanti L. Improper use of epidural injections for lumbar spinal stenosis. Comment RE: Friedly JL, et al. A randomized trial of epidural glucocorticoid injections for spinal stenosis. N Engl J Med 2014; 371:11-21.
105. Health Technology Assessment, Washington State Health Care Authority. Spinal Injections, Updated Final Evidence Report. Spectrum Research, Inc., March 10, 2011. www.hta.hca.wa.gov/documents/updated_final_report_spinal_injections_0310-1.pdf
106. Chou R, Hashimoto R, Friedly J, Fu R, Dana T, Elliott S, Sullivan S, Jarvik J. Pain Management Injection Therapies for Low Back Pain. Technology Assessment Report Prepared for Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). Project ID: ESIB 0813. October 29, 2014.
107. van Lent M, Overbeke J, Out HJ. Role of editorial and peer review processes in publication bias: Analysis of drug trials submitted to eight medical journals. PLoS One 2014; 9:e104846.
108. Godlee F. The ethics of peer review. In: Jones AH, McLellan F (ed). Ethical Issues in Biomedical Publication. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 2000, pp 59-84.
109. Bradley SG. Managing competing interests. In: Marcrina FL (eds.). Scientific Integrity: Text and Cases in Responsible Conduct of Research. 3rd ed. ASM, Washington, DC, 2005.
110. Khan NA, Lombeida JI, Singh M, Spencer HJ, Torralba KD. Association of industry funding with the outcome and quality of randomized controlled trials of drug therapy for rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2012; 64:2059-2067.
111. Kaiser KA, Cofield SS, Fontaine KR, Glasser SP, Thabane L, Chu R, Ambrale S, Dwary AD, Kumar A, Nayyar G, Affuso O, Beasley M, Allison DB. Is funding source related to study reporting quality in obesity or nutrition randomized control trials in top-tier medical journals? Int J Obes (Lond) 2012; 36:977-981.
112. Norris SL, Holmer HK, Ogden LA, Burda BU, Fu R. Conflicts of interest among authors of clinical practice guidelines for glycemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus. PLoS One 2013; 8:e75284.
113. Sah S, Loewenstein G. Nothing to declare: Mandatory and voluntary disclosure leads advisors to avoid conflicts of interest. Psychol Sci 2014; 25:575-584.
114. Lo B, Ott C. What is the enemy in CME, conflicts of interest or bias? JAMA 2013; 310:1019-1020.
115. Owens B. US conflict-of-interest case draws attention across continent. CMAJ 2013; 185:1309.
116. Hershey D. Misconceptions about Helmont’s willow experiment. Plant Sci Bull 2003; 78-84.
117. Manchikanti L, Hirsch JA, Cohen SP, Heavner JE, Falco FJE, Diwan S, Boswell MV, Candido KD, Onyewu O, Zhu J, Sehgal N, Kaye AD, Benyamin RM, Helm II S, Singh V, Datta S, Abdi S, Christo PJ, Hameed H, Hameed M, Vallejo R, Pampati V, Racz GB, Raj PP. Assessment of methodologic quality of randomized trials of interventional techniques: Development of an interventional pain management specific instrument. Pain Physician 2014; 17:E263-E290.
118. Manchikanti L, Hirsch JA, Heavner JE, Cohen SP, Benyamin RM, Sehgal N, Falco FJE, Vallejo R, Onyewu O, Zhu J, Kaye AD, Boswell MV, Helm II S, Candido KD, Diwan S, Simopoulos TT, Singh V, Pampati V, Racz GB, Raj PP. Development of an interventional pain management specific instrument for methodologic quality assessment of nonrandomized studies of interventional techniques. Pain Physician 2014; 17:E291-E317.
119. Hershey D. The widespread misconception that the tambalacoque or calvaria tree absolutely required the dodo bird for its seed to germinate. Plant Sci Bull 2004; 105-108.
120. Allchin D. Reassessing, van Helmont D, Reassessing history. Bioscience. J Coll Biol Teaching 1993; 19:3-5.
121. Noordin S, Wright JG, Howard A. Relationship between declared funding support and level of evidence. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2010; 92:1647-1651.
122. Amiri AR, Kanesalingam K, Cro S, Casey AT. Does source of funding and conflict of interest influence the outcome and quality of spinal research? Spine J 2014; 14:308-314.
123. Ware M, Monkman M. Peer review in scholarly journals: Perspective of the scholarly community — an international study. Publishing Research Consortium. 2008. http://publishingresearch.net/index.php?view=download&alias=36-peer-review-ful l-prc-report-fi-nal&option=com_docman&Itemid=816
124. Baggs HG, Broome ME, Dougherty MC, Freda MC, Kearney MH. Blinding in peer review: The preferences of reviewers for nursing journals. J Adv Nurs 2008; 64:131-138.
125. Budden AE, Tregenza T, Aarssen LW, Koricheva J, Leimu R, Lortie CJ. Doubleblind review favours increased representation of female authors. Trends Ecol Evol 2008; 23:4-6.
126. Brown RJ. Double anonymity in peer review within the chemistry periodicals community. Learned Publishing 2007; 20:131-137.
127. Science and Technology Committee. Eighth report: Peer review in scientific publications. July 28, 2011. www.senseaboutscience.org/data/files/Peer_Review/Peer_review_in_scientific_publications.pdf
128. Darling ES. Use of double-blind peer review to increase author diversity. Conserv Biol 2014 Jul 4. [Epub ahead of print]
129. Eva KW. To blind or not to blind? That remains the question. Med Educ 2012; 46:924-925.
130. Ceci SJ, Peters D. How blind is blind review? Am Psychol 1984; 39:1491-1494.
131. Justice AC, Cho MK, Winker MA, Berlin JA. Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 1998; 280:240-242.
132. Yankauer A. How blind is blind review? Am J Public Health 1991; 81:843-845.
133. van Rooyen S, Delamothe T, Evans SJ. Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: Randomized controlled trial. BMJ 2010; 341:c5729.
134. Couzin J. Stem cells. and how the problems eluded peer reviewers and editors. Science 2006; 311:23-24.
135. Gutierrez D. Retractions of dishonest scientific papers rose 1,900% in nine years. www.naturalnews.com/044806_study_retractions_scientific_papers_academic_dishonesty.html
136. Holden C. Stem cell research: Korean cloner admits lying about oocyte donations. Science 2005; 310:1402-1403.
137. Bell Labs. Report of the Investigation Committee on the Possibility of Scientific Misconduct in the Work of Hendrik Schon and Coauthors. Bell Labs, Madison, WI, 2002. www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpublish.aps.org%2Freports%2Flucentrep.pdf&ei=MQsKVJmRGpL_yQSXjIDoAg&usg=AFQjCNHKKPgFGJxNQudxoyotW C1lm87xhw
138. Godlee F, Gale CR, Martyn CN. Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 1998; 280:237-240.
139. Callaham ML, Baxt WG, Waeckerle JF, Wears RL. Reliability of editors’ subjective quality ratings of peer reviews of manuscripts. JAMA 1998; 280:229-231.
140. Atkinson DR, Furlong BE, Wampold MJ. Statistical significance, reviewer evaluations, and the scientific process: Is there a statistically significant relationship? J Counsel Psychol 1982; 29:189-194.
141. Habib AS, Gan TJ. Scientific fraud: Impact of Fujii’s data on our current knowledge and practice for the management of postoperative nausea and vomiting. Anesth Analg 2013; 116:520-522.
142. Sessler DI, Kurz A. Departmental and institutional strategies for reducing fraud in clinical research. Anesth Analg 2012; 115:474-476.
143. Scott-Lichter D and the Editorial Policy Committee,. Council of Science Editors. CSE’s White Paper on Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications. 2012 Update. 3rd Revised Edition, Wheat Ridge, CO, 2012. http://www.councilscienceeditors.org/wpcontent/uploads/entire_whitepaper.pdf
144. Armstrong J. Barriers to scientific contributions: The author’s formula. Behav Brain Sci 1982; 197-199.
145. White PF, Rosow CE, Shafer SL; Editorial Board of Anesthesia & Analgesia. The Scott Reuben saga: One last retraction. Anesth Analg 2011; 112:512-515.
146. Fang FC, Steen RG, Casadevall A. Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2012; 109:17028-17033.
147. Amos KA. The ethics of scholarly publishing: exploring differences in plagiarism and duplicate publication across nations. J Med Libr Assoc 2014; 102:87-91.
148. Citron DT, Ginsparg P. Patterns of text reuse in a scientific corpus. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2014 Dec 8. [Epub ahead of print].
149. Kumar PM, Priya NS, Musalaiah S, Nagasree M. Knowing and avoiding plagiarism during scientific writing. Ann Med Health Sci Res 2014; 4:S193-S198.
150. Pupovac V, Fanelli D. Scientists admitting to plagiarism: A meta-analysis of surveys. Sci Eng Ethics 2014 Oct 29. [Epub ahead of print]
151. Armstrong JD 2nd. Plagiarism: What is it, whom does it offend, and how does one deal with it? AJR Am J Roentgenol 1993; 161:479-484.
152. Dickens BM, Gruskin S, Tarantola D. Avoiding plagiarism: The assurance of original publication. Am J Public Health 2011; 101:969.
153. Gnanavel S. Self-plagiarism: The latest ethical dilemma in biomedical research. Indian J Psychol Med 2014; 36:448-449.
154. Hastings R. Medical researcher, Steven Eaton, who faked cancer data jailed for three months. The Independent, April 17, 2013. www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/medical-researcher-steven-eaton-who-faked-cancer-data-jailed-forthreemonths-8577395.html
155. Wiwanitkit V. Simultaneous submission, duplicate publication, self-plagiarism and the proper management. J Minim Access Surg 2014; 10:51.
156. Chowhan A, Nandyala R, Patnayak R, Phaneendra B. Plagiarism: Trespassing the grey zone between searching and researching. Ann Med Health Sci Res 2013; 3:S56-S58.