Department of Internal Medicine, VU University Medical Center, PO Box 7057, 1007MB Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2013 Sep;66(9):946-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.03.023. Epub 2013 Jul 8.
Much of what is researched is never published. This would not be of great concern if the selection of what we read would occur irrespective of study outcomes. Unfortunately, the reverse is the case: "positive" studies have a much larger chance of acceptance after editorial and peer review than "negative" ones. Several solutions to this problem of publication bias have been discussed or implemented, but none seem to be very effective. In this article, the approach of implementing an editorial and peer-review procedure that is blinded to study outcomes is discussed. This would require a two-step submission procedure of manuscripts: first a version including just the introduction and methods and in some cases followed by a second submission including results and discussion. The pros and cons of such an approach are discussed.
很多研究都从未发表过。如果我们所阅读的内容选择不取决于研究结果，这不会是一个很大的问题。但不幸的是，事实正好相反：经过编辑和同行评审后，“阳性”研究比“阴性”研究更有可能被接受。已经讨论或实施了几种解决这种发表偏倚问题的方法，但似乎都不是很有效。本文讨论了实施对研究结果盲法的编辑和同行评审程序的方法。这需要采用两步提交手稿的程序：首先提交只包括引言和方法的版本，在某些情况下，再提交包括结果和讨论的第二部分。这种方法的优缺点进行了讨论。
