↓ Skip to main content

Preventing the ends from justifying the means: withholding results to address publication bias in peer-review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Psychology, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#7 of 314)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
3 blogs
twitter
266 tweeters
peer_reviews
1 peer review site
facebook
5 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Preventing the ends from justifying the means: withholding results to address publication bias in peer-review
Published in
BMC Psychology, December 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40359-016-0167-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Katherine S. Button, Liz Bal, Anna Clark, Tim Shipley

Abstract

The evidence that many of the findings in the published literature may be unreliable is compelling. There is an excess of positive results, often from studies with small sample sizes, or other methodological limitations, and the conspicuous absence of null findings from studies of a similar quality. This distorts the evidence base, leading to false conclusions and undermining scientific progress. Central to this problem is a peer-review system where the decisions of authors, reviewers, and editors are more influenced by impressive results than they are by the validity of the study design. To address this, BMC Psychology is launching a pilot to trial a new 'results-free' peer-review process, whereby editors and reviewers are blinded to the study's results, initially assessing manuscripts on the scientific merits of the rationale and methods alone. The aim is to improve the reliability and quality of published research, by focusing editorial decisions on the rigour of the methods, and preventing impressive ends justifying poor means.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 266 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Croatia 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Unknown 47 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 22%
Researcher 9 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 12%
Professor 5 10%
Student > Bachelor 5 10%
Other 10 20%
Unknown 3 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 21 43%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 14%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Other 8 16%
Unknown 5 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 180. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 June 2019.
All research outputs
#81,370
of 14,030,753 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychology
#7
of 314 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,158
of 380,689 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychology
#3
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,030,753 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 314 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 380,689 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.