One of the serious problems discussed at the 1997
conference on peer review in Prague was the wide
reluctance of editors to publish research with
negative results -- a form of bias. [JAMA July 15,
1998]

A second problem is incomplete reporting, one
that I like to call "insularity bias." For example,
JAMA and other publishers agreed on a Consolidation
of Standards for Reporting Trials [CONSORT] that
asks, "State general interpretation of the data in
light of the totality of the available evidence."
[JAMA 276:637-649. 1996]

This seems like common sense, not only at the end
of a study but in its preparation. It's not so easy,
in part because of the elusiveness of results both
positive and negative. What's needed is more
library research. The Prague conference heard
a study that indicated it is just not being done.

Some folks thought E-Biomed might solve the
problem of circulating negative results. Without
the sort of expert review invested by journal
publishers, they would not be considered very
reliable.

Albert Henderson
Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY
<70244.1532@compuserve.com>

-------------Forwarded Message-----------------

> From: William Johnson [SMTP:scilib@ASU.EDU]
> Sent: Monday, September 20, 1999 6:41 PM
> To:   SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU
> Subject:      Journals or web sites publishing negative results
>
> Anyone familiar with a source (journal, Web site) exclusively publishing
> negative results?  For example, in the study of how X effects Y, the
> results show no effect.
>
> Thanks
>
> Bill
> ------------------------------------
> Bill Johnson, Science Librarian
>
> Arizona State University East
> Library Services
> 7001 E. Williams Field Rd.
> Building 20 Mail Code 0180
> Mesa AZ 85212
>
> 480-727-1160, FAX 480-727-1077
> scilib@asu.edu
>
> Maranatha
> -------------------------