One would supppose that in a scientific journal scientific merit would be
the most important criterium on whether to publish a scientific article or
not. Whether an article is particularly newsworthy in a non-scientific
sense would hopefully come right at the bottom of the list of publishing
inclusion criteria. Am I being naive ?
Dr J Kock
Penman Pathologists
[log in to unmask]
-----Original Message-----
From: (Ted Harding) [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 26 January 1999 03:08
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: JAMA --Publisher's BIAS is the issue for EBH!
On 26-Jan-99 [log in to unmask] wrote:
>
> Consider this represents an opportunity to discuss how to identify
> publishers's biases in a journal that many medical folk use as a basic
> source of information.
>
>>From an evidence-based view, not only do we seek the evidence of the
> appropriateness for the firing, but also to understand how the
> positions (beliefs, assumptions and preferences) of the publishers
> might impact on their choice of material and mode of presentation.
>
> This is rather relevant to any evidence-based discussion.
>
> Steve Rinsler
Agreed it is indeed rather relevant. But we also need to consider not
only the "positions (beliefs, assumptions and preferences) of the
publishers" but also those of members of the editorial board and, if one
were in a position to ascertain them, those of members of review panels as
well.
Not that I intend this to be a comment on the JAMA issue -- I'm keeping
out of that. But, whichever side you take on that issue, one way or the
other it is (it seems to me) a glimpse of the tip of an iceberg.
And it is this iceberg which I regard as supremely relevant to any
evidence-based discussion.
For instance: out there among all you list members, self-declared as
particularly interested in evidence -- can anyone point to any serious
survey of the Medical literature which evaluates articles in terms of the
likelihood that they got published as a consequence of pressures
(political, commercial or prejudicial), and/or in terms of comparison to
studies that did not get published for similar reasons?
If anyone can identify such a thing, I for one would be very interested
to hear of it so please post a reference to the list!
Best wishes to all,
Ted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
E-Mail: (Ted Harding) <[log in to unmask]>
Date: 26-Jan-99 Time: 13:08:10
------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|