Abstract
We examined whether scientific reviewers exhibit bias in scoring a simulated "positive" study (i.e. showing adverse fetal effects) as compared to a simulated "negative" study on the fetal effects of binge drinking. The reviewers of the "negative" study tended to reject it more commonly, to give it lower scores, and there was significantly more variability from the median in their scores. Scientific journals should make an effort to eliminate this source of bias against negative results.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | e281-e283 |
| Journal | Journal of Population Therapeutics and Clinical Pharmacology |
| Volume | 17 |
| Issue number | 2 |
| State | Published - 2010 |
| Externally published | Yes |
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Reviewers' bias against the null hypothesis: The reproductive hazards of binge drinking'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver