“Reviewer Bias”, E. Ernst, K. L. Resch, E. M. Uher1992-06-01 (publication bias, peer review; similar)⁠:

Several forms of publication bias distort the medical literature.

To test the hypothesis that “reviewer bias” exists, a MEDLINE search of publications on transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) 1983^–₇1990_34ya was carried out to identify investigators who had reported original data on this subject…The selected investigators were sent a fictitious “research paper” on TENS. It deliberately included strong points and flaws but reported a “positive” result.

…16 questionnaires were returned, including 8 from the “pro” and 8 from the “contra” TENS subgroups. Table 1 shows that the “pro” referees judged our “paper” more favorably than did the “contra” referees. A score, constructed by adding the answers to all 5 questions, differed statistically-significantly between the 2 groups (5.7 compared with 11.3, p < 0.02).

…Our findings suggest that reviewers do not detach themselves from their previous experiences

Similar Links: