Publication bias in methodological computational research

Cancer Informatics

Volumn 14, Issue , 2015, Pages 11-19

  Boulesteix, Anne Laure ^a   Stierle, Veronika ^a   Hapfelmeier, Alexander ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

^b TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

Author keywords

Epistemology; False research findings; Overoptimism; Publication practice

Indexed keywords

AWARENESS; PILOT STUDY; PUBLISHING;

EID: 84949937088     PISSN: None     EISSN: 11769351     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.4137/CIN.S30747     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Sterling TD. Publication decisions and their possible effects on inferences drawn from tests of significance – or vice-versa. JASA. 1959;54:30–4.
2. Easterbrook PJ, Berlin JA, Gopalan R, Matthews DR. Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet. 1991;337(8746):867–72.
3. Dickersin K. The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its occurrence. JAMA. 1990;263(10):1385–9.
4. Goldacre B. Bad Pharma: How Medicine is Broken, and How We Can Fix It. London: Fourth Estate Ltd; 2013.
5. Olson CM, Rennie D, Cook D, et al. Publication bias in editorial decision making. JAMA. 2002;287(21):2825–8.
6. Lee KP, Boyd EA, Holroyd-Leduc JM, Bacchetti P, Bero LA. Predictors of publication: characteristics of submitted manuscripts associated with acceptance at major biomedical journals. Med J Aust. 2006;184(12):621–6.
7. Lynch JR, Cunningham MR, Warme WJ, Schaad DC, Wolf FM, Leopold SS. Commercially funded and United States-based research is more likely to be published; good-quality studies with negative outcomes are not. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(5):1010–8.
8. Okike K, Kocher MS, Mehlman CT, Heckman JD, Bhandari M. Publication bias in orthopaedic research: an analysis of scientific factors associated with publication in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American Volume). J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90(3):595–601.
9. Weber EJ, Callaham ML, Wears RL, Barton C, Young G. Unpublished research from a medical specialty meeting: why investigators fail to publish. JAMA. 1998;280(3):257–9.
10. Kupfersmid J, Fiala M. A survey of attitudes and behaviors of authors who publish in psychology and education journals. Am Psychol. 1991;46(3):249–50.
11. Song F, Parekh S, Hooper L, et al. Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases. Health Technol Assess. 2010;14(8):1–193.
12. Haller H, Krauss S. Misinterpretation of significance: a problem students share with their teachers? Methods Psychol Res Online. 2002;7(1):1–20.
13. Ioannidis J. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med. 2005;2(8):e124.
14. Macleod M, Michie S, Roberts I, et al. Biomedical research: increasing value, reducing waste. Lancet. 2014;383(9912):101–4.
15. Ioannidis J. How to make more published research true. PLoS Med. 2014;11(10):e1001747.
16. Sutton AJ, Song F, Gilbody SM, Abrams KR. Modelling publication bias in meta-analysis: a review. Stat Methods Med Res. 2000;9:421–45.
17. Jin ZC, Zhou XH, He J. Statistical methods for dealing with publication bias in meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2015;34(2):343–60.
18. Altman D, Bland J. Statistics notes: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. BMJ. 1995;311(7003):485–485.
19. Jelizarow M, Guillemot V, Tenenhaus A, Strimmer K, Boulesteix AL. Over-optimism in bioinformatics: an illustration. Bioinformatics. 2010;26(16):1990–8.
20. Breiman L. Random forests. Mach Learn. 2001;45(1):5–32.
21. Boulesteix AL, Janitza S, Hapfelmeier A, van Steen K, Strobl C. Letter to the editor: on the term ‘interaction’ and related phrases in the literature on random forests. Brief Bioinform. 2015;16(2):338–45.
22. Boulesteix AL, Lauer S, Eugster M. A plea for neutral comparison studies in computational sciences. PLoS One. 2013;8(4):e61562.
23. Winham SJ, Colby CL, Freimuth RR, et al. SNP interaction detection with random forests in high-dimensional genetic data. BMC Bioinform. 2012;13:164.
24. Boulesteix AL, Hable R, Lauer S, Eugster M. A statistical framework for hypothesis testing in real data comparison studies. Am Stat. 2015;69(3):201–12.
25. Boulesteix AL. Ten simple rules for reducing overoptimistic reporting in methodological computational research. PLoS Comput Biol. 2015;11(4):e1004191.