And now, e-publication bias
BMJ 2010; 340 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c2243 (Published 28 April 2010) Cite this as: BMJ 2010;340:c2243
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Given that profit drives every industry decision, including what to
publish and where to publish it, all publishers must treat industry
sponsored research with a certain degree of caution. I don't see how this
applies more to OA publishers than TA publishers -- why would the
standards for preventing misuse of the publishing system be different
between the two?
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Publication bias in the medical literature is caused by a number of
factors (for a recent review, see [1]). Journal editors, peer reviewers
[2] and the availability of space in print journals [3] also contribute to
the over-reporting of positive findings.
Given the authors identified greater prevalence of industry funding
in unlocked papers and not evidence of publication bias per se, I find the
title/tagline of this letter misleading. Moreover, the opposing forces of
open access journals on publication bias should be considered.
Online open access journals frequently have little or no restrictions
on space, and can consider a wider range of articles that traditional
print journals. Indeed, some open access journals [4,5] actively encourage
the publication of negative or inconclusive results, helping to complete
the scientific record and combat the pernicious effects of publication
bias on evidence-based medicine.
Although further research on which factors (industry funding, lack of
space, etc) have the most substantial impact on publication bias may be
needed, the continued growth [6] of peer-reviewed open access journals
could quite conceivably be a greater – opposing – force on publication
bias than the assumption that industry funding of published open access
articles will lead to over-reporting of positive results.
References
1. McGauran N, Wieseler, B, Kreis, J, Schuler, Y-B, Kolsch, H and
Kaiser, Thomas: Reporting bias in medical research - a narrative review.
Trials 2010, 11:37
2. Gwendolyn B. Emerson, Richard A. Brand, James D. Heckman, Winston
J. Warme, Fredric M. Wolf, and Seth S. Leopold: Testing for the Presence
of Positive-Outcome Bias in Peer Review: A Randomized Controlled Trial
[abstract] http://www.ama-assn.org/public/peer/abstracts_2009.html#27
3. Chan A-W, Hróbjartsson A, Haahr MT, Gøtzsche PC, Altman DG:
Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized
trials: Comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA 2004, 291:2457
-2465
4. Altman DG, Furberg CF, Grimshaw JM, Rothwell PM. Lead editorial:
Trials – using the opportunities of electronic publishing to improve the
reporting of randomised trials. Trials 2006, 7:6
5. http://www.biomedcentral.com/bmcresnotes
6. Suber, S: Open access in 2009.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/01-02-10.htm
Competing interests:
IH is employed by the open access publisher BioMed Central and receives a fixed salary.
Competing interests: No competing interests
I read the report by Jakobsen et al. with a great interest [1].
The fact that open access becomes a way that the publisher can "get
money", many journals offer this option to the author. Some also force the
author to order this option , without the alternative no open acess
choice. Indeed, the problem of page charge, processing charge and the new
open access charge should be carefully considered. Although these charges
might be the way that the publishers survive in the present economic
crisis, the bias in judgement for publication by the ability to afford the
charge by the authors is common. Is this the time to open this possible
"hidden agenda" of the publisher and journal?
References
1. Jakobsen AK, Christensen R, Persson R, Bartels EM, Kristensen LE. And
now, e-publication bias. BMJ 2010; 340: c2243
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Authors response: How open access can create publication bias
The tagline, e-publication bias is neither misleading or beside the
point. It merely points to the fact that electronic publishing has
introduced new sources of bias in the process of getting out to the
readers. Failure to recognize this important message could be futile, and
bias the dissemination of research in years to come, as the list of high
impact journals operating under some kind of OA concept has expanded
tremendously over the past 5 years.
In a broader view e-publication bias confines any bias in
communication of scholarly information free of charge on the internet,
including but not restricted to publication bias. To get proof of concept
we have studied funding status as a potential source of e-publication bias
in the setting of an OA hybrid journal.
Publishing an article OA means that the results are made accessible
to readers free of charge, which is apparently advantageous to the author,
since the results reach more readers as demonstrated by Davis et al (1).
It is clear that an additional OA fee means that the economic barrier to
publishing in OA hybrid journals as well as pure OA journals is increased
compared to publishing in old-school subscription access journals. Our
question is: who will choose to pay the extra charge to have their article
published OA? And the answer is obvious: those who have positive results
to report and who can afford it. In accordance with this reasoning we also
found that studies receiving funding of any source were significantly more
likely to be published OA opposed to those receiving no funding at all
(please see: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/337/jul31_1/a568#232983).
Given these circumstances we do not find it likely that OA as we know it
today (except green model OA) can reduce publication bias, as Iain
Hrynaszkiewicz assumes.
Finally we want to clarify, that this is not a quest against OA
publishing or industry funding. Our mission is simply to contribute to the
minimization of bias in the electronic reporting of scientific findings.
Competing interests:
RC: is editor in the Cochrane Collaboration (Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review group [CMSG]).
Competing interests: No competing interests