More Blind Than Double-Blind Review?
The Wall Street Journal has published an interesting article on the failure of medical journals to adequately screen articles (reprinted below in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette):
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05130/501996.stm
To quote:
A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association last year reviewed 122 medical-journal articles and found that 65 percent of findings on harmful effects weren’t completely reported. It also found gaps in half the findings on how well treatments worked. . . .
Journal editors rarely see the complete design and outcome of the studies summarized in articles submitted for publication. A typical article is perhaps six or seven pages long, even when the research behind it took years and involved thousands of patients. Peer reviewers — other scientists who work voluntarily to review articles before they are published — also see only the brief article. They might fail to notice suspicious omissions and changes in focus, or, if they do, lack the time or inclination to follow them up.
Latest posts in Scholarly Communication
- European Commission Launches Open Access Pilot Project - August 21st, 2008
- CLIR Report: No Brief Candle: Reconceiving Research Libraries for the 21st Century - August 20th, 2008
- Adrian K. Ho Named Scholarly Communication Librarian at Western Libraries of the University of Western Ontario - August 19th, 2008
