Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T02:14:37.670Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE LIMITED EFFECTIVENESS OF PRESTIGE AS AN INTERVENTION ON THE HEALTH OF MEDICAL JOURNAL PUBLICATIONS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 November 2013

Carole J. Lee
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Under the traditional system of peer-reviewed publication, the degree of prestige conferred to authors by successful publication is tied to the degree of the intellectual rigor of its peer review process: ambitious scientists do well professionally by doing well epistemically. As a result, we should expect journal editors, in their dual role as epistemic evaluators and prestige-allocators, to have the power to motivate improved author behavior through the tightening of publication requirements. Contrary to this expectation, I will argue that the publication bias literature in academic medicine demonstrates that editor interventions have had limited effectiveness in improving the health of the publication and trial registration record, suggesting that much stronger interventions are needed.

Type
Discussion
Information
Episteme , Volume 10 , Issue 4 , December 2013 , pp. 387 - 402
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Allison, D. B., Faith, M. S. and Gorman, B. S. 1996. ‘Publication Bias in Obesity Treatment Trials?’ International Journal of Obesity and Related Metabolic Disorders, 20: 931–7.Google ScholarPubMed
Altman, D. G.for the CONSORT Group. 2005. ‘Endorsement of the CONSORT Statement by High Impact Medical Journals: Survey of Instructions for Authors.’ British Medical Journal, 330: 1056–7.Google Scholar
Anderson, E. 1995. ‘Feminist Epistemology: An Interpretation and Defense.’ Hypatia, 10: 50–84.Google Scholar
Angell, M. 2004. The Truth about the Drug Companies: How they Deceive us and What to Do about It. New York, NY: Random House.Google Scholar
Barbui, C., Hotopf, M. and Garattini, S. 2002. ‘Fluoxetine Dose and Outcome in Antidepressant Drug Trials.’ European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 58: 379–86.Google Scholar
Bardy, A. H. 1998. ‘Bias in Reporting Clinical Trials.’ British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 46: 147–50.Google Scholar
Begg, C., Cho, M., Eastwood, S. et al. 1996. ‘Improving the Quality of Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials: The CONSORT Statement.’ Journal of the American Medical Association, 276: 637–9.Google Scholar
Berlin, J. A., Begg, C. B. and Louis, T. A. 1989. ‘An Assessment of Publication Bias Using a Sample of Published Clinical Trials.’ Journal of the American Statistical Association, 84(406): 381–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Born, G. V. R. and Collins, R. 1997. ‘Aspirin versus Clopidogrel: The Wrong Question?’ Lancet, 349(9054): 806–7.Google Scholar
British Medical Journal. 2011. Welcome to Resources for Authors. http://resources.bmj.com/bmj/authors.Google Scholar
Brown, J. R. 2004. ‘Money, Method and Medical Research.’ Episteme, 1:49–59.Google Scholar
Brown, J. R. 2008. ‘Politics, Method, and Medical Research.’ Philosophy of Science, 75: 756–66.Google Scholar
Bruijn, J. A. and van der Woude, F. 2002. ‘Tacrolimus and Ciclosporin Microemulsion in Renal Transplantation.’ Lancet, 360(9335): 800.Google Scholar
CAPRIE Steering Committee. 1996. ‘A Randomized, Blinded, Trial of Clopidogrel versus Aspirin in Patients at Risk of Aschaemic Events (CAPRIE).’ Lancet, 348(9038): 1329–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casadevall, A. and Fang, F. C. 2012. ‘Reforming Science: Methodological and Cultural Reforms.’ Infection and Immunity, 80: 891–6.Google Scholar
Chan, A.-W., Hróbjartsson, A., Haahr, M. T., Gøtzsche, P. C. and Altman, D. G. 2004. ‘Empirical Evidence for Selective Reporting of Outcomes in Randomized Trials: Comparison of Protocols to Published Articles.’ Journal of the American Medical Association, 291: 2457–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dickersin, K. and Min, Y-.I. 1993. ‘NIH Clinical Trials and Publication Bias.’ Online Journal of Current Clinical Trials (Doc. No. 50).Google Scholar
Dickersin, K., Min, Y.-I. and Meinert, C. L. 1992. ‘Factors influencing Publication of Research Results: Follow-up of Applications Submitted to Two Institutional Review Boards.’ Journal of the American Medical Association, 267: 374–9.Google Scholar
Dorsey, E. R., de Roulet, J., Thompson, J. P. et al. 2010. ‘Funding of US Biomedical Research 2003–2008.’ Journal of the American Medical Association, 303: 137–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Douglas, H. 2000. ‘Inductive Risk and Values in Science.’ Philosophy of Science, 67: 559–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Easterbrook, P. J., Berlin, J. A., Gopalan, R. and Matthews, D. R. 1991. ‘Publication Bias in Clinical Research.’ Lancet, 337(8746): 867–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Egger, M. and Smith, G. D. 1995. ‘Misleading Meta-Analysis: Lessons from “an Effective, Safe, Simple” Intervention that Wasn't. (Study on Treatment of Heart Attacks).’ British Medical Journal, 310(6982): 752–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, C. 2010. ‘Making a Killing.’ Mother Jones, 35(5):54–63.Google Scholar
Fanelli, D. 2009. ‘How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data.’ PLoS One, 4(5):1–11.Google Scholar
Fang, F. C. and Casadevall, A. 2011. ‘Retracted Science and the Retraction Index.’ Infection and Immunity, 79: 3855–9.Google Scholar
Fontanarosa, P. B. and DeAngelis, C. D. 2004. ‘Information for JAMA Authors – 2004.’ Journal of the American Medical Association, 291:107–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garattini, S., Bertele, V. and Bassi, L. L. 2003. ‘How Can Research Ethics Committees Protect Patients Better?’ British Medical Journal, 326: 1199–201.Google Scholar
Grady, D., Herrington, D., Bittner, V. et al. 2002. ‘Cardiovascular Disease Outcomes During 6.8 Years of Hormone Therapy: Heart and Estrogen/Progestin Replacement Study Follow-up (HERSII).’ Journal of the American Medical Association, 288: 49–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grieneisen, M. L. and Zhang, M. 2012. ‘A Comprehensive Survey of Retracted Articles from the Scholarly Literature.’ PLoS One 7 (10). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0044118.Google Scholar
Horton, R. 2004. ‘Review: The Dawn of McScience.’ The New York Review of Books, March 11: 7–9.Google Scholar
Hulley, S., Grady, D., Bush, T. et al. 1998. ‘Randomized Trial of Estrogen Plus Progestin for Secondary Prevention of Coronary Heart Diease in Postmenopausal Women.’ Journal of the American Medical Association 280: 605–13.Google Scholar
ICMJE. ‘Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Writing and Editing for Biomedical Publication [2004].’ Accessed March 1, 2013. http://www.icmje.org/2004_urm.pdf.Google Scholar
ICMJE. ‘Announcements, Updates & Editorials: Sponsorship, Authorship, and Accountability [2007].’ Accessed March 1, 2013. http://www.icmje.org/update_sponsor.html.Google Scholar
Intemann, K. and de Melo-Martin, I. 2010. ‘Social Values and Scientific Evidence: The Case of the HPV Vaccines.’ Biology and Philosophy, 25: 203–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ioannidis, J. P. A. 1998. ‘Effect of the Statistical Significance of Results on the Time to Completion and Publication of Randomized Efficacy Trials.’ Journal of the American Medical Association, 279: 281–6.Google Scholar
Ioannidis, J. P. A. 2005a. ‘Contradicted and Initially Stronger Effects in Highly Cited Clinical Research.’ Journal of the American Medical Association, 294: 218–28.Google Scholar
Ioannidis, J. P. A. 2005b. ‘Why Most Published Research Findings are False.’ PLoS Medicine, 2: 696–701.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ioannidis, J. P. A. 2009. ‘Adverse Events in Randomized Trials: Neglected, Restricted, Distorted, and Silenced.’ Archives of Internal Medicine, 169: 1737–9.Google Scholar
Ioannidis, J. P. A., Evans, S. J. W., Gøtzsche, P. C. et al. 2004. ‘Better Reporting of Harms in Randomized Trials: An Extension of the CONSORT Statement.’ Annals of Internal Medicine, 141: 781–8.Google Scholar
Ioannidis, J. P. A. and Lau, J. 2001. ‘Completeness of Safety Reporting in Randomized Trials: An Evaluation of Medical Areas.’ Journal of the American Medical Association 285: 437–43.Google Scholar
Jennions, M. D. and Møller, A. P. 2002a. ‘Publication Bias in Ecology and Evolution: An Empirical Assessment Using the ‘Trim and Fill' Method.’ Biological Reviews, 77: 211–22.Google Scholar
Jennions, M. D. and Møller, A. P. 2002b. ‘Relationships Fade with Time: A Meta-Analysis of Temporal Trends in Publication in Ecology and Evolution.’ Proceedings: Biological Sciences, 269(1486): 43–8.Google Scholar
Johansen, H. K. and Gøtzsche, P. C. 1999. ‘Problems in the Design and Reporting of Trials of Antifungal Agents Encountered During Meta-Analysis.’ Journal of the American Medical Association, 282(18): 1752–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
John, L. K., Loewenstein, G. and Prelec, D. 2012. ‘Measuring the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices with Incentives for Truth Telling.’ Perspectives on Psychological Science 23: 524–32.Google Scholar
Kane, R., Wang, J. and Garrard, J. 2007. ‘Reporting in Randomized Clinical Trials Improved after Adoption of the CONSORT Statement.’ Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 60: 241–9.Google Scholar
Kirsch, I., Moore, T. J., Scoboria, A. and Nicholls, S. S. 2002. ‘The Emperor's New Drugs: Effect Size and Moderation Effects.’ Prevention and Treatment, 5(1): Art. 23.Google Scholar
Kitcher, P. 2001. Science, Truth, and Democracy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kravitz, R. L. and Feldman, M. D. 2011. ‘From the Editor's Desk: Self-Plagiarism and Other Editorial Crimes and Misdemeanors.’ Journal of General Internal Medicine, 26: 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, B., Jones, C., Matthews, B., Pepler, S. and Callaghan, S. 2011. ‘Citation and Peer Review of Data: Moving towards Formal Data Publication.’ International Journal of Digital Curation, 6(2): 4–37.Google Scholar
Lee, C. J. 2012. ‘A Kuhnian Critique of Psychometric Research on Peer Review.’ Philosophy of Science, 79: 859–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, C. J. and Schunn, C. D. 2010. ‘Philosophy Journal Practices and Opportunities for Bias.’ APA Newsletters: Newsletter on Feminism and Philosophy, 10(1): 5–10.Google Scholar
Lee, C. J. and Schunn, C. D. 2011. ‘Social Biases and Solutions for Procedural Objectivity.’ Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy, 26: 352–73.Google Scholar
Lee, C. J., Sugimoto, C. R., Zhang, G. and Cronin, B. 2013. ‘Bias in Peer Review.’ Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 64: 2–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lexchin, J., Bero, L. A., Djulbegovic, B. and Clark, O. 2003. ‘Pharmaceutical Industry Sponsorship and Research Outcome and Quality: A Systematic Review.’ British Medical Journal, 326: 1167–76.Google Scholar
Longino, H. E. 1990. Science as Social Knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Lundh, A., Sismondo, S., Busuioc, O. A. and Bero, L. 2012. ‘Industry Sponsorship and Research Outcome (Review).’ Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (12). doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000033.pub2.Google Scholar
Martin II, R. C. G., Brennan, M. F. and Jaques, D. P. 2002. ‘Quality of Complication Reporting in the Surgical Literature.’ Annals of Surgery, 235: 803–13.Google Scholar
Mathieu, S., Boutron, I., Moher, D., Altman, D. G. and Ravaud, P. 2009. ‘Comparison of Registered and Published Primary Outcomes in Randomized Controlled Trials.’ Journal of the American Medical Association, 302: 977–84.Google Scholar
Melander, H., Ahlqvist-Rastad, J., Meijer, G. and Beermann, B. 2003. ‘Evidence B(i)ased Medicine – Selective Reporting from Studies Sponsored by Pharmaceutical Industry: Review of Studies in New Drug Applications.’ British Medical Journal, 326: 1171–5.Google Scholar
Merton, R. K. 1973. ‘The Ambivalence of Scientists (1963).’ In Storer, N. W. (ed.), The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, pp. 383–412. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Merton, R. K. and Zuckerman, H. 1971. ‘Institutional Patterns of Evaluation in Science (1971).’ In Storer, N. W. (ed.), The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, pp. 460–96. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Moher, D., Jones, A. and Lepage, L. 2001. ‘Use of the CONSORT Statement and Quality of Reports of Randomized Trials: A Comparative Before-and-After Evaluation.’ Journal of the American Medical Association, 285: 1992–5.Google Scholar
Neuliep, J. W. and Crandall, R. 1990. ‘Editorial Bias against Replication Research.’ Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 5(4): 85–90.Google Scholar
Neuliep, J. W. and Crandall, R. 1993. ‘Reviewer Bias against Replication Research.’ Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 8(6): 21–9.Google Scholar
Oldenberg, H. 1966. Correspondence of Henry Oldenberg. Trans. by Rupert Hall, A. and Hall, Marie Boas. Vol. 2. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Olson, C. M., Rennie, D., Cook, D. et al. 2002. ‘Publication Bias in Editorial Decision Making.’ Journal of the American Medical Association, 287: 2825–8.Google Scholar
Palmer, A. R. 2000. ‘Quasireplication and the Contract of Error: Lessons from Sex Ratios, Heritabilities and Fluctuating Asymmetry.’ Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 31: 441–80.Google Scholar
Parsons, M. A., Duerr, R. and Minster, J.-B. 2010. ‘Data Citation and Peer Review.’ Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, 91 (34): 297–8.Google Scholar
Pipkin, F. B., Crowther, C., de Swiet, M. et al. 1996. ‘Where Next for Prophylaxis against Pre-Eclampsia?’ British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 103: 603–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitrou, I., Boutron, I., Ahmad, N. and Ravaud, P. 2009. ‘Reporting of Safety Results in Published Reports of Randomized Controlled Trials.’ Archives of Internal Medicine, 169: 1756–61.Google Scholar
Plint, A. C., Moher, D., Morrison, A. et al. 2006. ‘Does the CONSORT Checklist Improve the Quality of Reports of Randomised Controlled Trials? A Systematic Review.’ Medical Journal of Australia, 185: 263–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prayle, A. P., Hurley, M. N. and Smyth, A. R. 2012. ‘Compliance with Mandatory Reporting of Clinical Trial Results on ClinicalTrials.gov: Cross sectional Study.’ British Medical Journal, 344: d7373.Google Scholar
Psaty, B. M. and Kornmal, R. A. 2008. ‘Reporting Mortality Findings in Trials of Rofecoxib for Alzheimer Disease or Cognitive Impairment: A Case Study Based on Documents from Rofecoxib Litigation.’ Journal of the American Medical Association, 299: 1813–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reiss, J. 2010. ‘In favour of a Millian Proposal to Reform Biomedical Research.’ Synthese, 177: 427–47.Google Scholar
Reiss, J. and Kitcher, P. 2009. ‘Biomedical Research, Neglected Diseases, and Well-Ordered Science.’ Theoria, 66: 263–82.Google Scholar
Rochon, P. A., Gurwitz, J. H., Simms, R. W. et al. 1994. ‘A Study of Manufacturer-Supported Trials of Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs in the Treatment of Arthritis.’ Archives of Internal Medicine, 154: 157–63.Google Scholar
Ross, J. S., Mulvey, G. K., Hines, E. M., Nissen, S. E. and Krumholz, H. M. 2009. ‘Trial Publication after Registration in ClinicalTrials.Gov: A cross-sectional analysis.’ PLoS Medicine, 6(9): 1–9.Google Scholar
Rothman, K. J. 1986. ‘Significance Questing.’ Annals of Internal Medicine, 105: 445–7.Google Scholar
Rudner, R. 1953. ‘The Scientist Qua Scientist Makes Value Judgments.’ Philosophy of Science, 20(1): 1–6.Google Scholar
Sackett, D. L., Straus, S. E., Richardson, W. S., Rosenberg, W. and Haynes, R. B. 2000. Evidence-Based Medicine: How to Practice and Teach EBM. 2nd edn.Oxford: Churchill Livingstone.Google Scholar
Safer, D. J. 2002. ‘Design and Reporting Modifications in Industry-Sponsored Comparative Psychopharmacology Trials.’ Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 190: 583–92.Google Scholar
Schulz, K. F., Altman, D. G., Moher, D. and Fergusson, D. 2010. ‘CONSORT 2010 Changes and Testing Blindness in RCTs.’ Lancet, 375: 1144–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sekeres, M., Gold, J. L., Chan, A.-W. et al. 2008. ‘Poor Reporting of Scientific Leadership Information in Clinical Trial Registers.’ PLoS One, 3(2): 1–6.Google Scholar
Simes, R. J. 1986. ‘Publication Bias: The Case for an International Registry of Clinical Trials.’ Journal of Clinical Oncology, 4: 1529–41.Google Scholar
Simpson, G. M., and Lindenmayer, J.-P. 1997. ‘Extrapyramidal Symptoms in Patients Treated with Risperidone.’ Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology, 17(3): 194–201.Google Scholar
Smith, R. 2003. ‘Medical Journals and Pharmaceutical Companies: Uneasy Bedfellows.’ British Medical Journal, 326: 1202–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Snapinn, S. M. 2000. ‘Noninferiority Trials.’ Current Controlled Trials in Cardiovascular Medicine 1: 19–21.Google Scholar
Solomon, M. and Richardson, A. 2005. ‘A Critical Context for Longino's Critical Contextual Empiricism.’ Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 36: 211–22.Google Scholar
Stern, J. M. 1997. ‘Publication Bias: Evidence of Delayed Publication in a Cohort Study of Clinical Research Projects.’ British Medical Journal, 315 (7109): 640–5.Google Scholar
The Lancet. 2011. Types of Article and Manuscript Requirements. http://www.thelancet.com/lancet-information-for-authors/article-types-manuscript-requirements.Google Scholar
Thompson, J., Baird, P. and Downie, J. 2001. The Olivieri Report: The Complete Text of the Report of the Independent Inquiry Commissioned by the Canadian Association of University Teachers. Toronto: James Lorimer & Company.Google Scholar
Tramèr, M. R., Reynolds, D. J., Moore, R. A. and McQuay, H. J. 1997. ‘Impact of Covert Duplicate Publication on Meta-Analysis: A Case Study.’ British Medical Journal, 315(7109): 635–40.Google Scholar
Turner, E. H., Matthews, A. M., Linardators, E., Tell, R. A. and Rosenthal, R. 2008. ‘Selective Publication of Antidepressant Trials and Its Influence on Apparent Efficacy.’ New England Journal of Medicine, 358: 252–60.Google Scholar
Viergever, R. F. and Ghersi, D. 2011. ‘The Quality of Registration of Clinical Trials.’ PLoS One, 6 (2): 1–8.Google Scholar
Weber, E. J., Callaham, M. L., Wears, R. L., Barton, C. and Young, G. 1998. ‘Unpublished Research From a Medical Specialty Meeting: Why Investigators Fail to Publish.’ Journal of the American Medical Association, 280: 257–9.Google Scholar
Weller, A. C. 2001. Editorial Peer Review: Its Strengths and Weaknesses. Medford, NJ: American Society for Information Science and Technology.Google Scholar
Zarin, D. A., Ide, N. C., Tse, T. et al. 2007. ‘Issues in the Registration of Clinical Trials.’ Journal of the American Medical Association, 297: 2112–20.Google Scholar
Ziman, J. 1969. ‘Information, Communication, Knowledge.’ Nature 224: 318–24.Google Scholar
Zuckerman, H. and Merton, R. K. 1971. ‘Patterns of Evaluation in Science: Institutionalisation, Structure and Functions of the Referee System.’ Minerva 9: 66–100.Google Scholar