Balanced decisions and unbiased reporting in bioscience and medicine
Balanced decisions and unbiased reporting in bioscience and medicine
复制标题
生物科学和医学领域的平衡决策和公正报告
DOI：
10.5780/jbm2011.1
复制
发表时间：
2011
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
A. L. Goodell
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
M. Elias;A. Davey;A. L. Goodell
在这篇社论中，我们评论了《生物科学与医学杂志》（JBM）在推进生物科学和医学知识基础方面的编辑政策。这些措施包括快速审查过程，免费公开出版格式，强调“积木”研究以及新的研究，不限制字数，公开讨论和积极向科学同行的相关受众分发论文;最重要的是，发表正面和负面结果的论文。 我们认为，考虑到在科学中的作用概率和科学探究的自我纠正性质，科学界必须获得支持和反对特定假设和关联的全方位证据;从这个角度来看，符合质量标准的论文中的负面结果应该与正面结果一样对待。此外，我们还提出了具体的指导方针，以介绍负面结果，审查负面结果，最重要的是，决定何时提交负面结果进行同行评审。这些指导方针中包括GRADE（推荐、评估、发展和评价等级）方法，用于评估研究质量，并以合理的格式提供数据，以解释负面和正面的发现。更一般地说，我们认为，最重要的原因之一，负面结果没有公布是研究人员不愿意公布负面结果。我们认为，提交阴性结果数据的积极决定可能更有可能是像JBM这样的期刊，它们以平衡的方式发表阳性和阴性结果，而不是专注于阴性和阳性结果论文。
In this editorial we comment on editorial policies of the Journal of Bioscience and Medicine (JBM) in relation to advancing the knowledge base in bioscience and medicine. These include a rapid review process, a free open publication format, an emphasis on “building block” research as well as novel studies, no limitation in word count, open discussion and active distribution of papers to a relevant audience of scientific colleagues; and most importantly, publication of both positive and negative results papers. We argue that given the role probability in science and self-correcting nature of scientific inquiry, the scientific community must have access to the full range of evidence for and against specific hypotheses and associations; from this perspective, negative results in papers meeting quality standards should be treated no differently than positive results. Moreover, we suggest specific guidelines for presenting negative results, reviewing negative results, and most importantly, deciding when to submit negative results to peer review. Among these guidelines is the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach to evaluating the quality of the research and presentation of data in formats reasonable for interpretation of negative and positive finding. More generally we argue that one of the most significant reasons that negative results are not published is the reluctance of investigators to publish negative results. We suggest that positive decisions to submit negative results data may be more likely for journals such as JBM that publish both positive and negative results in a balanced fashion rather than focusing on either negative and positive results papers.