{"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":"2 1","pages":"Pages 29-30"},"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.
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。