Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Published online 14 September 2009 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2009.914
News
Sneak test shows positive-paper bias
Reviewers keener to give thumbs up to papers with positive results
VANCOUVER
Seth Leopold of the University of Washington, Seattle, composed two versions of a fake paper comparing the relative benefits of two antibiotic treatments.
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Comments
Reader comments are usually moderated after posting. If you find something offensive or inappropriate, you can speed this process by clicking 'Report this comment' (or, if that doesn't work for you, email webadmin@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.
If anything, more weight should be given to the significance in "Error Catches" that shows the merits of more than 200% discrepancy – 0.7 as compared to 0.3 errors.
The findings support my experience in engineering design, that peer reviews may often have a bias towards the larger and more reputable firms even when the design might be carried out by similarly qualified and experienced engineers in smaller specialist firms.
Likewise, consultant management experience shows that when Government employs two large consultant firms for peer review of each other's design, there is a tendency of preconceived an all's well bias when a third party independent check might prove otherwise.
As a patient, I have found diametrically-opposed views in both the general and specialised fields of medicine on the merits or otherwise on preferred drugs for the patient.
Perhaps psychologists and neuroscientists might cast some further light on our pre-conceived bias regardless of data available, with a view to adjusting the statistical methods used by mathematicians.
Liz Wager is so correct when she states, "It just goes to show that peer review is done by biased, subjective people." Leopold is also on target with "That's dirty pool." So, what's new, and what is the community going to do about it.