DLS wrote:
"some great comments and exchanges on this.
can i add my tuppance as an editor.
although research has shown that the predominant reason that "negative"
studies don't get published is that their authors hold them back (at every
step of analysing them, persenting them, abstracting them, and submitting
them for publication), i frequently reject "negative" studies for my
journal (ebm). the reason is that they aren't really "negative" (in the
sense that the
new Rx clearly doesn't work). rather, they are merely "indeterminate" (the
study is so small [under-powered] that even a clinically-significant effect
would lie within
a confidence interval that included zero). the conclusion of such a study
has to be: "RxA might work but, then again, it might not," and i don't
consider that conclusion worth asking my busy clinical readers to wade
through.
hope this helps."
If it's true that authors' hold back negative results, I wonder why this is?
After all, CV's don't say if a publication showed a "positive" or negative"
result.
My experience, over many years, is that if there are two studies completed, one
"positive", the other "negative", the positive one will be written-up and
submitted
first. The main reason? Authors know they will have a tough time with the
negative
study and will probably spend months shopping around for a journal to take
it. The
CV is hungry now. However, I don't think authors are slow to analyse "negative"
studies as DS suggests. After all, who knows it's negative until it's been
analysed?
The fact is that journals editors just love POSITIVE, especially if it's
also NEW.
It's good news, a great press release, publicity for the journal, more
journal subs. Journals have to make a living, just like mags & newspapers.
DS says that he rejects papers at EBM on grounds of low statistical power alone
(all other aspects of methodology being sound, presumably). I wonder if this is
good policy? After all, we have meta-analysis now and all those low power,
"negative" studies might add up to make quite an impact on the totality of
evidence, if ever published. Perhaps the only clear grounds on which to reject
a paper are serious design or implimentation errors preventing a clear
interpretation
of each piece of data or a subject matter of no apparent relavance.
John Stapleton
John Stapleton, Senior Lecturer, Tobacco Research Unit, National Addiction
Centre,
Institute of Psychiatry, 4 Windsor Walk, London SE5 8AF, UK
e-mail: [log in to unmask] tel: 0171-919-3450 fax: 0171-703-6197
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|