Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 North Wolfe Street, Mail room E6153, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA.
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2012 Feb 23;10:23. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-10-23.
Unbiased and frank discussion of study limitations by authors represents a crucial part of the scientific discourse and progress. In today's culture of publishing many authors or scientific teams probably balance 'utter honesty' when discussing limitations of their research with the risk of being unable to publish their work. Currently, too few papers in the medical literature frankly discuss how limitations could have affected the study findings and interpretations. The goals of this commentary are to review how limitations are currently acknowledged in the medical literature, to discuss the implications of limitations in biomedical studies, and to make suggestions as to how to openly discuss limitations for scientists submitting their papers to journals. This commentary was developed through discussion and logical arguments by the authors who are doing research in the area of hedging (use of language to express uncertainty) and who have extensive experience as authors and editors of biomedical papers. We strongly encourage authors to report on all potentially important limitations that may have affected the quality and interpretation of the evidence being presented. This will not only benefit science but also offers incentives for authors: If not all important limitations are acknowledged readers and reviewers of scientific articles may perceive that the authors were unaware of them. Authors should take advantage of their content knowledge and familiarity with the study to prevent misinterpretations of the limitations by reviewers and readers. Articles discussing limitations help shape the future research agenda and are likely to be cited because they have informed the design and conduct of future studies. Instead of perceiving acknowledgment of limitations negatively, authors, reviewers and editors should recognize the potential of a frank and unbiased discussion of study limitations that should not jeopardize acceptance of manuscripts.
作者对研究局限性进行公正和坦诚的讨论是科学论述和进展的重要组成部分。在当今的出版文化中，许多作者或科研团队在讨论其研究局限性时，可能会在“完全诚实”和无法发表工作的风险之间取得平衡。目前，医学文献中很少有论文坦率地讨论局限性如何影响研究结果和解释。本文评论的目的是回顾目前医学文献中如何承认局限性，讨论生物医学研究中局限性的影响，并就如何公开讨论提交给期刊的论文的局限性为科学家提出建议。本文是由从事回避（使用语言表达不确定性）研究的作者通过讨论和逻辑论证而形成的，作者在生物医学论文的作者和编辑方面拥有丰富的经验。我们强烈鼓励作者报告所有可能对正在呈现的证据的质量和解释产生影响的重要局限性。这不仅有利于科学，也为作者提供了激励：如果没有承认所有重要的局限性，科学文章的读者和审稿人可能会认为作者对此并不了解。作者应利用其内容知识和对研究的熟悉程度，防止审稿人和读者对局限性产生误解。讨论局限性的文章有助于塑造未来的研究议程，并可能被引用，因为它们为未来的研究设计和实施提供了信息。作者、审稿人和编辑不应将承认局限性视为负面因素，而应认识到公正坦诚地讨论研究局限性的潜力，这不应危及稿件的接受。
