Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2014 Aug 12;9(8):e104846.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0104846. eCollection 2014.

Role of editorial and peer review processes in publication bias: analysis of drug trials submitted to eight medical journals

Marlies van Lent  1 , John Overbeke  2 , Henk Jan Out  3
Affiliations

Role of editorial and peer review processes in publication bias: analysis of drug trials submitted to eight medical journals

Marlies van Lent et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Background: Publication bias is generally ascribed to authors and sponsors failing to submit studies with negative results, but may also occur after submission. We evaluated whether submitted manuscripts on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with drugs are more likely to be accepted if they report positive results.

Methods: Manuscripts submitted from January 2010 through April 2012 to one general medical journal (BMJ) and seven specialty journals (Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, British Journal of Ophthalmology, Gut, Heart, Thorax, Diabetologia, and Journal of Hepatology) were included, if at least one study arm assessed the efficacy or safety of a drug and a statistical test was used to evaluate treatment effects. Publication status was retrospectively retrieved from submission systems or provided by journals. Sponsorship and trial results were extracted from manuscripts and classified according to predefined criteria. Main outcome measure was acceptance for publication.

Results: Of 15,972 manuscripts submitted, 472 (3.0%) were drug RCTs, of which 98 (20.8%) were published. Among submitted drug RCTs, 287 (60.8%) had positive and 185 (39.2%) negative results. Of these, 60 (20.9%) and 38 (20.5%), respectively, were published. Manuscripts on non-industry trials (n = 213) reported positive results in 138 (64.8%) manuscripts, compared to 71 (47.7%) on industry-supported trials (n = 149), and 78 (70.9%) on industry-sponsored trials (n = 110). Twenty-seven (12.7%) non-industry trials were published, compared to 27 (18.1%) industry-supported and 44 (40.0%) industry-sponsored trials. After adjustment for other trial characteristics, manuscripts reporting positive results were not more likely to be published (OR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.61 to 1.66). Submission to specialty journals, sample size, multicentre status, journal impact factor, and corresponding authors from Europe or US were significantly associated with publication.

Conclusions: For the selected journals, there was no tendency to preferably publish manuscripts on drug RCTs that reported positive results, suggesting that publication bias may occur mainly prior to submission.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors read the journal's policy and have the following conflicts: HJO is a paid employee from Teva Pharmaceuticals. JO is the immediate past-president of the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME). MvL reports no competing interests. This research was supported by an unrestricted educational grant from MSD, The Netherlands (Dutch subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc). The funder had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication. This does not alter the authors' adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Publication status of manuscripts submitted to eight medical journals during the study time frame.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Sterne J, Egger M, Moher D, the Cochrane Bias Methods Group (2011) Chapter 10: Addressing reporting biases. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: The Cochrane Collaboration.
    1. Dwan K, Gamble C, Williamson PR, Kirkham JJ, Reporting Bias Group (2013) Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias - an updated review. PLoS One 8: e66844. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hopewell S, Loudon K, Clarke MJ, Oxman AD, Dickersin K (2009) Publication bias in clinical trials due to statistical significance or direction of trial results. Cochrane Database Syst Rev: MR000006. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Rising K, Bacchetti P, Bero L (2008) Reporting bias in drug trials submitted to the Food and Drug Administration: review of publication and presentation. PLoS Med 5: e217. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Lundh A, Sismondo S, Lexchin J, Busuioc OA, Bero L (2012) Industry sponsorship and research outcome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 12: MR000033. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources