Healthy Skepticism Library item: 15133
Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.
Publication type: Journal Article
An Unbiased Scientific Record Should Be Everyone's Agenda
PLoS Med 2009 Feb 24; 6:(2):e38
http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.1000038
Abstract:
A large and growing literature details the many ways by which research and the subsequent published record can be inappropriately influenced, including publication bias [1], outcome reporting bias [2], financial [3] and non-financial [4] competing interests, sponsors’ control of study data and publication [5], and restrictions on access to data and materials [6]. But it can be difficult for an editor, reading a submitted manuscript, to disentangle these many influences and to understand whether the work ultimately represents valid science.
Any journal has stories to tell of attempts to unduly influence the publication process-such as the author who repeatedly appeals a manuscript’s rejection, claiming the reviewers are incompetent and demanding evaluation by a specific list of preferred experts, or the biotech company that refuses to publicly deposit the microarray data underlying their findings. Sometimes distortion of the scientific record may be limited in scope, relating to just one paper. But when a single company funds virtually an entire research agenda on a particular topic, there is the potential for wider and far more damaging distortion. In a detailed analysis of documentation released as part of a class-action lawsuit relating to the drug gabapentin (Neurontin), Kay Dickersin has described “…a remarkable assemblage of evidence of reporting biases that amount to outright deception of the biomedical community, and suppression of scientific truth concerning the effectiveness of Neurontin for migraine, bipolar disorders, and pain…†(7, summarized in [8]). Here we propose five ways in which authors and editors can mitigate the effects of biased agendas on the published scientific record.
