BACKGROUND: If positive-outcome bias exists, it threatens the integrity of evidence-based medicine. METHODS: We sought to determine whether positive-outcome bias is present during peer review by testing whether peer reviewers would (1) recommend publication of a "positive" version of a fabricated manuscript over an otherwise identical "no-difference" version, (2) identify more purposefully placed errors in the no-difference version, and (3) rate the "Methods" section in the positive version more highly than the identical "Methods" section in the no-difference version. Two versions of a well-designed randomized controlled trial that differed only in the direction of the finding of the principal study end point were submitted for peer review to 2 journals in 2008-2009. Of 238 reviewers for The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research randomly allocated to review either a positive or a no-difference version of the manuscript, 210 returned reviews. RESULTS: Reviewers were more likely to recommend the positive version of the test manuscript for publication than the no-difference version (97.3% vs 80.0%, P < .001). Reviewers detected more errors in the no-difference version than in the positive version (0.85 vs 0.41, P < .001). Reviewers awarded higher methods scores to the positive manuscript than to the no-difference manuscript (8.24 vs 7.53, P = .005), although the "Methods" sections in the 2 versions were identical. CONCLUSIONS: Positive-outcome bias was present during peer review. A fabricated manuscript with a positive outcome was more likely to be recommended for publication than was an otherwise identical no-difference manuscript.
%0 Journal Article
%1 Emerson2010
%A Emerson, Gwendolyn B
%A Warme, Winston J
%A Wolf, Fredric M
%A Heckman, James D
%A Brand, Richard A
%A Leopold, Seth S
%D 2010
%J Archives of internal medicine
%K Humans LogisticModels OutcomeAssessment(HealthCare) PeerReview PeriodicalsasTopic PublicationBias Research RCT
%N 21
%P 1934-9
%R 10.1001/archinternmed.2010.406
%T Testing for the presence of positive-outcome bias in peer review: a randomized controlled trial.
%U http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21098355
%V 170
%X BACKGROUND: If positive-outcome bias exists, it threatens the integrity of evidence-based medicine. METHODS: We sought to determine whether positive-outcome bias is present during peer review by testing whether peer reviewers would (1) recommend publication of a "positive" version of a fabricated manuscript over an otherwise identical "no-difference" version, (2) identify more purposefully placed errors in the no-difference version, and (3) rate the "Methods" section in the positive version more highly than the identical "Methods" section in the no-difference version. Two versions of a well-designed randomized controlled trial that differed only in the direction of the finding of the principal study end point were submitted for peer review to 2 journals in 2008-2009. Of 238 reviewers for The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research randomly allocated to review either a positive or a no-difference version of the manuscript, 210 returned reviews. RESULTS: Reviewers were more likely to recommend the positive version of the test manuscript for publication than the no-difference version (97.3% vs 80.0%, P < .001). Reviewers detected more errors in the no-difference version than in the positive version (0.85 vs 0.41, P < .001). Reviewers awarded higher methods scores to the positive manuscript than to the no-difference manuscript (8.24 vs 7.53, P = .005), although the "Methods" sections in the 2 versions were identical. CONCLUSIONS: Positive-outcome bias was present during peer review. A fabricated manuscript with a positive outcome was more likely to be recommended for publication than was an otherwise identical no-difference manuscript.
%@ 1538-3679; 0003-9926
@article{Emerson2010,
abstract = {BACKGROUND: If positive-outcome bias exists, it threatens the integrity of evidence-based medicine. METHODS: We sought to determine whether positive-outcome bias is present during peer review by testing whether peer reviewers would (1) recommend publication of a "positive" version of a fabricated manuscript over an otherwise identical "no-difference" version, (2) identify more purposefully placed errors in the no-difference version, and (3) rate the "Methods" section in the positive version more highly than the identical "Methods" section in the no-difference version. Two versions of a well-designed randomized controlled trial that differed only in the direction of the finding of the principal study end point were submitted for peer review to 2 journals in 2008-2009. Of 238 reviewers for The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research randomly allocated to review either a positive or a no-difference version of the manuscript, 210 returned reviews. RESULTS: Reviewers were more likely to recommend the positive version of the test manuscript for publication than the no-difference version (97.3% vs 80.0%, P < .001). Reviewers detected more errors in the no-difference version than in the positive version (0.85 vs 0.41, P < .001). Reviewers awarded higher methods scores to the positive manuscript than to the no-difference manuscript (8.24 vs 7.53, P = .005), although the "Methods" sections in the 2 versions were identical. CONCLUSIONS: Positive-outcome bias was present during peer review. A fabricated manuscript with a positive outcome was more likely to be recommended for publication than was an otherwise identical no-difference manuscript.},
added-at = {2023-02-03T11:44:35.000+0100},
author = {Emerson, Gwendolyn B and Warme, Winston J and Wolf, Fredric M and Heckman, James D and Brand, Richard A and Leopold, Seth S},
biburl = {https://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2cca18f8e90ed7d94c7917404152f035b/jepcastel},
city = {Department of Orthopaedics, University of Washington, Seattle, 98195-6500, USA.},
doi = {10.1001/archinternmed.2010.406},
interhash = {27f21ec2cd24438fc5f2a4586ed026f0},
intrahash = {cca18f8e90ed7d94c7917404152f035b},
isbn = {1538-3679; 0003-9926},
issn = {1538-3679},
journal = {Archives of internal medicine},
keywords = {Humans LogisticModels OutcomeAssessment(HealthCare) PeerReview PeriodicalsasTopic PublicationBias Research RCT},
month = {11},
note = {6232<m:linebreak></m:linebreak>JID: 0372440; ppublish;},
number = 21,
pages = {1934-9},
pmid = {21098355},
timestamp = {2023-05-04T08:59:38.000+0200},
title = {Testing for the presence of positive-outcome bias in peer review: a randomized controlled trial.},
url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21098355},
volume = 170,
year = 2010
}