World Disease Weekly
Are Journals Biased Against Alternative Medicine?
Charles W. Henderson, April 9, 2000
" -- New research has found that academic reviewers were three times more likely to rate an article on conventional medicine as important than an otherwise identical one on 'alternative' therapies. The study, to be published in the April Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, was carried out by Professor Ernst of Exeter University, and two colleagues from Germany and the U.K., Dr. Reach and Professor Garrow. The authors warn that "technically good unconventional papers may be at a disadvantage in the peer review process." In the study, two scientific papers on obesity treatments were sent from the editorial board of the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition (EJCN) to nearly 400 specialists.
"The papers were identical except for the name of the treatment being researched. In Version A, the drug was hydroxycitrate, an orthodox medicine. In Version B, it was a homeopathic sulphur remedy. It is standard practice for the EJCN's articles to be sent to appropriate specialists for assessment. However, the reviewers did not know that they themselves were being studied until after they had made their recommendations.
" Although their replies were anonymous, Ernst's team was able to tell which paper had been seen, because of tiny differences in layout on the evaluation sheets sent with each version. Analysis of the evaluations showed that "a bias against publication of unconventional therapies exists." Reviewers were more likely to recommend that the journal publish Version A, and were significantly more likely to to rate the 'conventional' study as important. However, when the reviewers were asked to rate specific aspects of the study, such as method, reliability, and references, the bias did not show up. It only appeared in the "less definable" overall rating of importance. Ernst et al. conclude that "lack of open mindedness in the peer review process could affect the introduction of unconventional concepts into medicine." They call for more investigation into the way medical journals choose what to publish. This article was prepared by World Disease Weekly editors from staff and other reports.ight 2000.(!)
|