Does the removal of results from a submitted paper reduce publication bias?

Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva
{"title":"Does the removal of results from a submitted paper reduce publication bias?","authors":"Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva","doi":"10.1016/j.psrb.2016.09.009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>A recent paper by Findley et al. (2016) in <em>Comparative Political Studies</em> suggests that the removal of results from a paper may decrease publication bias. However, in the biomedical sciences, a paper without results is not interpretable; therefore, such a solution is not viable for addressing the reproducibility crisis. Instead, Findley et al.’s proposal should form a pre-submission step that enables colleagues and peers to evaluate a paper's experimental design and protocol prior to submission to a journal for regular peer review. Introducing a new, data-free model for peer review would only dilute the efficacy of current models and weaken efforts to improve existing publication practices.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":101000,"journal":{"name":"Pacific Science Review B: Humanities and Social Sciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.psrb.2016.09.009","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pacific Science Review B: Humanities and Social Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405883116300582","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

A recent paper by Findley et al. (2016) in Comparative Political Studies suggests that the removal of results from a paper may decrease publication bias. However, in the biomedical sciences, a paper without results is not interpretable; therefore, such a solution is not viable for addressing the reproducibility crisis. Instead, Findley et al.’s proposal should form a pre-submission step that enables colleagues and peers to evaluate a paper's experimental design and protocol prior to submission to a journal for regular peer review. Introducing a new, data-free model for peer review would only dilute the efficacy of current models and weaken efforts to improve existing publication practices.

从已提交的论文中删除结果是否会减少发表偏倚?
Findley等人(2016)最近在《比较政治研究》(Comparative Political Studies)上发表的一篇论文表明,从论文中删除结果可能会减少发表偏倚。然而,在生物医学领域,没有结果的论文是不可解释的;因此,这种解决方案对于解决可再现性危机是不可行的。相反,Findley等人的建议应该形成一个提交前的步骤,使同事和同行能够在提交给期刊进行定期同行评审之前评估论文的实验设计和方案。引入一种新的、无数据的同行评议模式只会削弱当前模式的效力,削弱改善现有出版实践的努力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信