A randomized controlled study of reviewer bias against an unconventional therapy
A randomized controlled study of reviewer bias against an unconventional therapy
复制标题
DOI：
10.1177/014107680009300402
复制
发表时间：
2000-04-01
影响因子：
17.3
通讯作者：
Garrow, J
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Resch, KI;Ernst, E;Garrow, J
一项研究旨在验证一个假设，即审查论文发表的专家对非传统形式的治疗有偏见。制作了两个版本（A和B）的“简短报告”，该报告与肥胖症的治疗有关，除了干预的性质之外是相同的。版本A与传统治疗相关，版本B与非传统治疗相关。398名评审员随机接受一个或另一个版本进行同行评审。主要结果是审稿人在1-5级量表上对“重要性”的评分以及他们对拒绝或接受论文的裁决。评价者不知道他们正在参加一项研究，总体回复率为41.7%，141份评估表适合进行统计评价。评分量表二分法后，有显著差异的是赞成正统版本的加一;比率3.01（95%置信区间，1.03至8.25），这一观察结果反映了视觉模拟量表的结果，其各自的中位数和四分位距为67%。（51%至78.5%）的版本A和57%（29.7%至72.6%）的版本B。审稿人显示了广泛的反应，这两个版本的文件，与一个显着的偏见，有利于正统的版本。因此，技术上优秀的非传统论文的作者可能在同行评审过程中处于不利地位。然而，这种影响可能太小，不足以阻止他们的工作在同行评议的正统期刊上发表。
A study was designed to test the hypothesis that experts who review papers for publication are prejudiced against an unconventional form of therapy. Two versions were produced (A and B) of a 'short report' that related to treatments of obesity, identical except for the nature of the intervention. Version A related to an orthodox treatment, version B to an unconventional treatment. 398 reviewers were randomized to receive one or the other version for peer review. The primary outcomes were the reviewers' rating of 'importance' on a scale of 1-5 and their verdict regarding rejection or acceptance of the paper. Reviewers were unaware that they were taking part in a study.The overall response rate was 41.7%, and 141 assessment forms were suitable for statistical evaluation. After dichotomization of the rating scale, a significant difference in favour of the orthodox version with an adds; ratio of 3.01 (95% confidence interval, 1.03 to 8.25), was found. This observation mirrored that of the visual analogue scale for which the respective medians and interquartile ranges were 67% (51% to 78.5%) for version A and 57% (29.7% to 72.6%) for version B.Reviewers showed a wide range of responses to both versions of the paper, with a significant bias in favour of the orthodox version. Authors of technically good unconventional papers may therefore be at a disadvantage in the peer review process. Yet the effect is probably too small to preclude publication of their work in peer-reviewed orthodox journals.