I read this paper after Dr. Dolan strongly recommended it in class the other day and easily identified with the conclusion that the paper drew. It reminded me about the article on ‘The Effect of Financial Incentives on Hospitals that serve Poor Patients” by Jha et al. which I had blogged about a couple of months ago. The lack of positive findings in the paper by Jha et al. clearly made me disinterested in reading the paper and I began to doggedly question the methodology of the study, and my untrained eye tried hard to identify errors in the inference, statistical calculations and other nuances of the paper.
The findings of this paper by Emerson et al. and my experience described above underscore the ‘unattractiveness’ of a paper that has no positive findings. It is true that positive findings are attractive and appeal to the inquisitiveness of the human mind to understand a problem better. That they also build the reputation of a journal is another perspective. So what makes a ‘no-difference’ research paper an ‘unattractive’ proposition to publish? Wouldn’t the positive-outcome bias exert an undue pressure on researchers to ‘fabricate’ positive findings in the hope that their paper would get published? Couldn’t a paper with an indifferent result also be a learning for researchers, both accomplished and novice?
Acknowledging and demonstrating the existence of this bias is a critical step towards addressing the concern. It is surprising to note that no major studies have been conducted in this area before. To maintain the validity of the peer-review process it would be essential to further investigate this area. The conduct of the peer review process is a scientific one, with every effort made to eliminate any possible bias. But then again, it is the human mind which is at the center of the review exercise. Can a complex adaptive system like the human mind be controlled to eliminate the existence of the bias?
I read this paper after Dr. Dolan strongly recommended it in class the other day and easily identified with the conclusion that the paper drew. It reminded me about the article on ‘The Effect of Financial Incentives on Hospitals that serve Poor Patients” by Jha et al. which I had blogged about a couple of months ago. The lack of positive findings in the paper by Jha et al. clearly made me disinterested in reading the paper and I began to doggedly question the methodology of the study, and my untrained eye tried hard to identify errors in the inference, statistical calculations and other nuances of the paper.
The findings of this paper by Emerson et al. and my experience described above underscore the ‘unattractiveness’ of a paper that has no positive findings. It is true that positive findings are attractive and appeal to the inquisitiveness of the human mind to understand a problem better. That they also build the reputation of a journal is another perspective. So what makes a ‘no-difference’ research paper an ‘unattractive’ proposition to publish? Wouldn’t the positive-outcome bias exert an undue pressure on researchers to ‘fabricate’ positive findings in the hope that their paper would get published? Couldn’t a paper with an indifferent result also be a learning for researchers, both accomplished and novice?
Acknowledging and demonstrating the existence of this bias is a critical step towards addressing the concern. It is surprising to note that no major studies have been conducted in this area before. To maintain the validity of the peer-review process it would be essential to further investigate this area. The conduct of the peer review process is a scientific one, with every effort made to eliminate any possible bias. But then again, it is the human mind which is at the center of the review exercise. Can a complex adaptive system like the human mind be controlled to eliminate the existence of the bias?
I read this paper after Dr. Dolan strongly recommended it in class the other day and easily identified with the conclusion that the paper drew. It reminded me about the article on ‘The Effect of Financial Incentives on Hospitals that serve Poor Patients” by Jha et al. which I had blogged about a couple of months ago. The lack of positive findings in the paper by Jha et al. clearly made me disinterested in reading the paper and I began to doggedly question the methodology of the study, and my untrained eye tried hard to identify errors in the inference, statistical calculations and other nuances of the paper.
ReplyDeleteThe findings of this paper by Emerson et al. and my experience described above underscore the ‘unattractiveness’ of a paper that has no positive findings. It is true that positive findings are attractive and appeal to the inquisitiveness of the human mind to understand a problem better. That they also build the reputation of a journal is another perspective. So what makes a ‘no-difference’ research paper an ‘unattractive’ proposition to publish? Wouldn’t the positive-outcome bias exert an undue pressure on researchers to ‘fabricate’ positive findings in the hope that their paper would get published? Couldn’t a paper with an indifferent result also be a learning for researchers, both accomplished and novice?
Acknowledging and demonstrating the existence of this bias is a critical step towards addressing the concern. It is surprising to note that no major studies have been conducted in this area before. To maintain the validity of the peer-review process it would be essential to further investigate this area. The conduct of the peer review process is a scientific one, with every effort made to eliminate any possible bias. But then again, it is the human mind which is at the center of the review exercise. Can a complex adaptive system like the human mind be controlled to eliminate the existence of the bias?
Actually Caroline said:
ReplyDeleteI read this paper after Dr. Dolan strongly recommended it in class the other day and easily identified with the conclusion that the paper drew. It reminded me about the article on ‘The Effect of Financial Incentives on Hospitals that serve Poor Patients” by Jha et al. which I had blogged about a couple of months ago. The lack of positive findings in the paper by Jha et al. clearly made me disinterested in reading the paper and I began to doggedly question the methodology of the study, and my untrained eye tried hard to identify errors in the inference, statistical calculations and other nuances of the paper.
The findings of this paper by Emerson et al. and my experience described above underscore the ‘unattractiveness’ of a paper that has no positive findings. It is true that positive findings are attractive and appeal to the inquisitiveness of the human mind to understand a problem better. That they also build the reputation of a journal is another perspective. So what makes a ‘no-difference’ research paper an ‘unattractive’ proposition to publish? Wouldn’t the positive-outcome bias exert an undue pressure on researchers to ‘fabricate’ positive findings in the hope that their paper would get published? Couldn’t a paper with an indifferent result also be a learning for researchers, both accomplished and novice?
Acknowledging and demonstrating the existence of this bias is a critical step towards addressing the concern. It is surprising to note that no major studies have been conducted in this area before. To maintain the validity of the peer-review process it would be essential to further investigate this area. The conduct of the peer review process is a scientific one, with every effort made to eliminate any possible bias. But then again, it is the human mind which is at the center of the review exercise. Can a complex adaptive system like the human mind be controlled to eliminate the existence of the bias?