This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

The Perspective of an Editor

David W. Sharp, MA

JAMA. 1990;263(10):1390-1391.

Abstract
"Publication bias" has three facets: (1) bias perceived by disappointed authors, (2) bias that journal policy may introduce, and (3) bias intrinsic in design and interpretation of the work itself. The third type, though a target of peer review, is not considered here, and the first type is more often imagined than real. However, general journals have to adopt policies on priorities that an outsider may see as bias, in the broadest sense. Opportunities for bias exist (18 varieties are listed here), but more objective evaluation is required before journals need to alter their peer review practices. In terms of work load and financial considerations, the price of some proposed correctives is high. Journals should monitor refereeing systems and allow appeals, but the case for policing systems—"blinding" referees (and, logically, editors), introducing tight codes of practice, and seeking solemn declarations of integrity, for example—needs more hard evidence.

(JAMA. 1990;263:1390-1391)

Author Affiliations
From the Editorial Office, The Lancet, London, United Kingdom.

Footnotes
Presented at The First International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication, Chicago, III, May 10-12, 1989.

Reprint requests to the Editorial Office, The Lancet, 42 Bedford Sq, London WC1B 3SL, United Kingdom (Mr Sharp).

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Commercially Funded and United States-Based Research Is More Likely to Be Published; Good-Quality Studies with Negative Outcomes Are Not
Lynch et al.
JBJS 2007;89:1010-1018.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Bias in published cost effectiveness studies: systematic review
Bell et al.
BMJ 2006;332:699-703.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Evidence on peer review---scientific quality control or smokescreen?
Goldbeck-Wood
BMJ 1999;318:44-45.
FULL TEXT  

What We Owe The Author: rethinking editorial peer review
Crigger
Nurs Ethics 1998;5:451-458.
ABSTRACT  

Peer Review for Journals as it Stands Today--Part 2
CAMPANARIO
Science Communication 1998;19:277-306.
ABSTRACT  

Evaluating Peer Reviews: Pilot Testing of a Grading Instrument
Feurer et al.
JAMA 1994;272:98-100.
ABSTRACT  

Is There Gender Bias in JAMA's Peer Review Process?
Gilbert et al.
JAMA 1994;272:139-142.
ABSTRACT  

Editorial
Brumback
J Child Neurol 1991;6:193-195.
 

The Evolution of Editorial Peer Review
Burnham
JAMA 1990;263:1323-1329.
ABSTRACT