Reviewer Bias
Authors: E. Ernst, K.L. Resch, E.M. Uher
Journal: Annals of Internal Medicine (1992)

Letters1 June 1992Reviewer BiasE. Ernst, MD, K.L. Resch, MD, E.M. Uher, MDE. Ernst, MD, K.L. Resch, MD, E.M. Uher, MDAuthor, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-116-11-958_2 SectionsAboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail ExcerptTo the Editors: Several forms of publication bias distort the medical literature (1). To test the hypothesis that "reviewer bias" exists, a MEDLINE search of publications on transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) between 1983 and 1990 was carried out to identify investigators who had reported original data on this subject. Thirty-three investigators whose data were either clearly for or against the clinical effectiveness of TENS were selected. Investigators whose studies produced inconclusive results were excluded. The selected investigators were sent a fictitious "research paper" on TENS. It deliberately included strong points and flaws but reported a "positive" result. The manuscript...References1. RennieFlanagin DA. Publication bias. JAMA. 1992;267:411-2. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar2. Epstein W. Studying journal editors, the worst heresy. International Review Board. 1989;11:7-8. Google Scholar3. Kemper K. Pride and prejudice in peer review. J Clin Epidemiol. 1991;44:343-5. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar4. Silverman W. The ethics of human experimentation. In: Human Experimentation—A Guided Step into the Unknown. New York. OUP; 1985;153-72. Google Scholar5. Feinstein A. Construction, consent, and condemnation in research on peer review. J Clin Epidemiol. 1991;44:339-41. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar This content is PDF only. To continue reading please click on the PDF icon. Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAffiliations: University of Vienna Medical School A-1097 Vienna Austria PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Metrics Cited ByDoes transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation affect vagally mediated heart rate variability? A living and interactive Bayesian meta‐analysisReferees or sponsors? The role of evaluators in the promotion of research scientists in a public research organizationReferees or sponsors? The role of evaluators in the promotion of research scientists in a public research organizationThe peer review process: a primer for JNIS readersArticle-level assessment of influence and translation in biomedical researchPeer Review: From "Sacred Ideals" to "Profane Realities"Outcome Reporting Bias in Government-Sponsored Policy Evaluations: A Qualitative Content Analysis of 13 StudiesBias in peer reviewA Review of the Types of Scientific Misconduct in Biomedical ResearchA Passion for Complementary and Alternative Medicine ResearchInvestigator bias and false positive findings in medical researchRefereeing Mortus Est, Vivat RefereeingA randomized controlled study of reviewer bias against an unconventional therapyReviewer bias against the unconventional? A randomized double-blind study of peer reviewNepotism and sexism in peer-reviewCriticizing the critics: Is peer-reviewing fair?Drawbacks of peer review 1 June 1992Volume 116, Issue 11Page: 958-958KeywordsNervesResearch design Issue Published: 1 June 1992 PDF DownloadLoading ...