The perceived feasibility of methods to reduce publication bias.
The perceived feasibility of methods to reduce publication bias.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1371/journal.pone.0186472
复制
发表时间：
2017
期刊：
影响因子：
3.7
通讯作者：
Betts JA
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Carroll HA;Toumpakari Z;Johnson L;Betts JA
发表偏倚在科学文献中普遍存在。虽然关于如何减少出版偏见有多种想法，但只有少数期刊做出了实质性的改变来解决这个问题。我们的目的是通过衡量期刊编辑（n = 73）和其他学者/研究人员（n = 160）对9种出版和同行评审研究方法的意见，探索减少出版偏见的策略的感知可行性：强制性出版物、负面结果期刊/文章、公开评审、同行评审培训和认证、出版后评审、方法学研究前出版物，公布的拒绝名单，研究注册和两阶段审查。参与者完成了一份问卷调查，询问定量（多项选择或李克特量表）和定性（开放式）问题，关于实施每项建议的障碍，以及他们的优势和局限性。参与者被要求对九条建议进行评分，然后选择他们认为最有效的方法。强制性出版被认为是编辑减少出版偏见的最有效方法（25%），是学者/研究人员的第三大选择（14%）。学者/研究人员最常见的选择是两阶段评审（26%），但很少有编辑优先考虑这一点（11%）。负面结果期刊/文章分别是学者/研究人员（21%）和编辑（16%）的第二和第三大最常见选择。编辑们更普遍地选择研究注册为“最有效”（21%），只有6%的学者/研究人员赞成。虽然受访者普遍赞成强制性出版，但在期刊一级试行是不可行的。如果建议已经实施（例如，负面结果期刊/文章，试验注册），应努力客观评估其有效性。两阶段审查应进一步试行，因为它在学者/研究人员中很受欢迎，这表明它可能很受欢迎，尽管编辑可能不太接受。还出现了一些潜在的变革障碍，包括科学文化、影响因素和研究人员培训;应进一步探讨这些障碍，以减少出版偏见。
Publication bias is prevalent within the scientific literature. Whilst there are multiple ideas on how to reduce publication bias, only a minority of journals have made substantive changes to address the problem. We aimed to explore the perceived feasibility of strategies to reduce publication bias by gauging opinions of journal editors (n = 73) and other academics/researchers (n = 160) regarding nine methods of publishing and peer-reviewing research: mandatory publication, negative results journals/articles, open reviewing, peer-review training and accreditation, post-publication review, pre-study publication of methodology, published rejection lists, research registration, and two-stage review. Participants completed a questionnaire asking both quantitative (multiple choice or Likert scales) and qualitative (open-ended) questions regarding the barriers to implementing each suggestion, and their strengths and limitations. Participants were asked to rate the nine suggestions, then choose the method they felt was most effective. Mandatory publication was most popularly selected as the ‘most effective’ method of reducing publication bias for editors (25%), and was the third most popular choice for academics/researchers (14%). The most common selection for academics/researchers was two-stage review (26%), but fewer editors prioritised this (11%). Negative results journals/articles were the second and third most common choices for academics/researchers (21%) and editors (16%), respectively. Editors more commonly chose research registration as ‘most effective’ (21%), which was favoured by only 6% of academics/researchers. Whilst mandatory publication was generally favoured by respondents, it is infeasible to trial at a journal level. Where suggestions have already been implemented (e.g. negative results journals/articles, trial registration), efforts should be made to objectively assess their efficacy. Two-stage review should be further trialled as its popularity amongst academics/researchers suggests it may be well received, though editors may be less receptive. Several underlying barriers to change also emerged, including scientific culture, impact factors, and researcher training; these should be further explored to reduce publication bias.
登录
查看更多内容
DOI：
10.1136/bmj.f6104
发表时间：
2013-10-29
期刊：
BMJ (Clinical research ed.)
影响因子：
--
作者：
Jones CW;Handler L;Crowell KE;Keil LG;Weaver MA;Platts-Mills TF
通讯作者：
Platts-Mills TF
对抗出版偏见的干预措施的障碍和促进者：学术文章和利益相关者访谈的主题分析。
影响因子：
2.8
作者：
Kien C;Nußbaumer B;Thaler KJ;Griebler U;Van Noord MG;Wagner P;Gartlehner G;UNCOVER Project Consortium
通讯作者：
UNCOVER Project Consortium
影响因子：
7.2
作者：
Malicki, Mario;Marusic, Ana
通讯作者：
Marusic, Ana
影响因子：
3.2
作者：
Kravitz DJ;Baker CI
通讯作者：
Baker CI
影响因子：
17.3
作者：
Resch, KI;Ernst, E;Garrow, J
通讯作者：
Garrow, J