Healthy Skepticism Library item: 19810

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

Rochon PA, Bero LA, Bay AM, Gold JL, Dergal JM, Binns MA, Streiner DL, Gurwitz JH
Comparison of Review Articles Published in Peer-Reviewed and Throwaway Journals
JAMA 2002 Jun 5; 287:(21):2853-2856
http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/287/21/2853.full

Abstract:

Context To compare the quality, presentation, readability, and clinical relevance of review articles published in peer-reviewed and “throwaway” journals.

Methods We reviewed articles that focused on the diagnosis or treatment of a medical condition published between January 1 and December 31, 1998, in the 5 leading peer-reviewed general medical journals and high-circulation throwaway journals. Reviewers independently assessed the methodologic and reporting quality, and evaluated each article’s presentation and readability. Clinical relevance was evaluated independently by 6 physicians.

Results Of the 394 articles in our sample, 16 (4.1%) were peer-reviewed systematic reviews, 135 (34.3%) were peer-reviewed nonsystematic reviews, and 243 (61.7%) were nonsystematic reviews published in throwaway journals. The mean (SD) quality scores were highest for peer-reviewed articles (0.94 [0.09] for systematic reviews and 0.30 [0.19] for nonsystematic reviews) compared with throwaway journal articles (0.23 [0.03], F2,391 = 280.8, P<.001). Throwaway journal articles used more tables (P = .02), figures (P = .01), photographs (P<.001), color (P<.001), and larger font sizes (P<.001) compared with peer-reviewed articles. Readability scores were more often in the college or higher range for peer-reviewed journals compared with the throwaway journal articles (104 [77.0%] vs 156 [64.2%]; P = .01). Peer-reviewed article titles were judged less relevant to clinical practice than throwaway journal article titles (P<.001).

Conclusions Although lower in methodologic and reporting quality, review articles published in throwaway journals have characteristics that appeal to physician readers.

Throwaway” journals are characterized as journals that contain no original investigations, are provided free of charge, have a high advertisement-to-text ratio, and are nonsociety publications.1​ Large circulations1 and readership polls2​ suggest that throwaway journals are more widely read than some peer-reviewed journals in the same subject areas. Despite their popularity, throwaway journals are judged disparagingly as a source of “instant cookbook medicine“3 and journals that are given away.4​ Indeed, throwaway journal articles1 are seldom peer reviewed and are almost never cited in the medical literature. They are considered to be of poor quality compared with peer-reviewed journal articles, despite the lack of formal quality comparisons.1​ Given the success of throwaway publications, we sought to understand why so many physicians read them. We assessed the quality, presentation, readability, and clinical relevance of review articles published in a sample of peer-reviewed journals compared with those published in a sample of throwaway journals.