Scientific Integrity of Publications? Epi Inquiry Accolade 01/29/2006

[Epidemiologic Inquiry 2006, 1: 9]

Given the recent rash of scientific scandals regarding fabricated stem cell research, concealment of adverse events in the rofecoxib VIGOR trial, and other incidents this past month alone... studies examining the quality of scientific publications and review process are becoming ever more important. This week, two interesting studies (one in JAMA, one in BMJ) explored such issues.

The article by Biondi-Zoccai et al. in the BMJ studied the degree of scientific agreement between the findings and conclusions of overlapping meta-analyses of the same clinical topic. Interestingly, they found that the the same meta-analysis topic-- longer manuscripts and articles published by those with non-profit funding scored higher in quality. This attests to potential biases due to funding, and potential adverse consequences of tight word lengths of scientific journals (this is most ironic for the BMJ, as the BMJ has the reputation to be the most restrictive in word length of articles).

Meanwhile, BMJ investigators also published in JAMA that for the peer review process, the practice of requesting author-suggested reviewers and/or having open-reviews (revealing the reviewer's identity) led to more favorable reviews. Though this is an intuitive bias of human-nature, journal editors fortunately were not swayed by differences in such peer review practices, which is reassuring for scientific integrity.

Therefore, for these important contributions to investigate the integrity of the scientific process, the editors this week select as the Epidemiologic Inquiry Accolade: Investigation of the Week (co-winners)...

Compliance with QUOROM and quality of reporting of overlapping meta-analyses on the role of acetylcysteine in the prevention of contrast associated nephropathy: case study
Biondi-Zoccai GG, Lotrionte M, Abbate A, Testa L, Remigi E, Burzotta F, Valgimigli M, Romagnoli E, Crea F, Agostoni P.
BMJ. 2006 Jan 28;332(7535):202-9.

Differences in review quality and recommendations for publication between peer reviewers suggested by authors or by editors.
Schroter S, Tite L, Hutchings A, Black N. (of the BMJ Editorial Office)
JAMA. 2006 Jan 18;295(3):314-7.

Click here to learn more information about the Epidemiologic Inquiry award series