IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v50y2021i1s0048733320302055.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Directing scientists away from potentially biased publications: the role of systematic reviews in health care

Author

Listed:
  • Salandra, Rossella
  • Criscuolo, Paola
  • Salter, Ammon

Abstract

Despite increasing concerns about the validity of published research, the issue of how the scientific community can maintain a high-quality body of research is not well understood. We consider the case of systematic reviews in health care, and explore whether risk of bias ratings communicated within these reviews may help shift scientists’ attention towards published research that is at a low risk of bias. We focus on publications deemed at risk of bias due to selective reporting; that is, scientific articles with high chances of systematic errors in the published research findings due to flaws in the reporting. Using a matched-sample control group we find that, after potential bias is signalled in systematic reviews, publications at high risk of bias attract less attention – as indicated by fewer follow-on citations – when compared to a control group of low risk of bias publications. We extend our analysis by considering those cases where risk of bias is unclear, and by examining how different features of the rating system may affect the magnitude of the main effect. The findings provide evidence about whether systematic reviews can play a role in signalling biases in the scientific literature, over and above their established role of synthesising prior research.

Suggested Citation

  • Salandra, Rossella & Criscuolo, Paola & Salter, Ammon, 2021. "Directing scientists away from potentially biased publications: the role of systematic reviews in health care," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(1).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:50:y:2021:i:1:s0048733320302055
    DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2020.104130
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733320302055
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.respol.2020.104130?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hall, Jeremy & Martin, Ben R., 2019. "Towards a taxonomy of research misconduct: The case of business school research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 414-427.
    2. Hussinger, Katrin & Pellens, Maikel, 2019. "Guilt by association: How scientific misconduct harms prior collaborators," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 516-530.
    3. Papathanassis, Alexis & Knolle, Friederike, 2011. "Exploring the adoption and processing of online holiday reviews: A grounded theory approach," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 215-224.
    4. Michael Spence, 2002. "Signaling in Retrospect and the Informational Structure of Markets," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(3), pages 434-459, June.
    5. J. L. Hutton & Paula R. Williamson, 2000. "Bias in meta‐analysis due to outcome variable selection within studies," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 49(3), pages 359-370.
    6. Kerry Dwan & Carrol Gamble & Paula R Williamson & Jamie J Kirkham & the Reporting Bias Group, 2013. "Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias — An Updated Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(7), pages 1-37, July.
    7. Martijn Arns, 2014. "Open access is tiring out peer reviewers," Nature, Nature, vol. 515(7528), pages 467-467, November.
    8. Azoulay, Pierre & Bonatti, Alessandro & Krieger, Joshua L., 2017. "The career effects of scandal: Evidence from scientific retractions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(9), pages 1552-1569.
    9. John P A Ioannidis, 2014. "How to Make More Published Research True," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(10), pages 1-6, October.
    10. Hausman, Jerry & Hall, Bronwyn H & Griliches, Zvi, 1984. "Econometric Models for Count Data with an Application to the Patents-R&D Relationship," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(4), pages 909-938, July.
    11. Daniele Fanelli, 2009. "How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(5), pages 1-11, May.
    12. Necker, Sarah, 2014. "Scientific misbehavior in economics," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(10), pages 1747-1759.
    13. Kerry Dwan & Douglas G Altman & Juan A Arnaiz & Jill Bloom & An-Wen Chan & Eugenia Cronin & Evelyne Decullier & Philippa J Easterbrook & Erik Von Elm & Carrol Gamble & Davina Ghersi & John P A Ioannid, 2008. "Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 3(8), pages 1-31, August.
    14. Lutz Bornmann & Rüdiger Mutz, 2015. "Growth rates of modern science: A bibliometric analysis based on the number of publications and cited references," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(11), pages 2215-2222, November.
    15. Gall, Thomas & Maniadis, Zacharias, 2019. "Evaluating solutions to the problem of false positives," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 506-515.
    16. Michail Kovanis & Raphaël Porcher & Philippe Ravaud & Ludovic Trinquart, 2016. "The Global Burden of Journal Peer Review in the Biomedical Literature: Strong Imbalance in the Collective Enterprise," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(11), pages 1-14, November.
    17. Jeremy Hall & Ben R. Martin, 2019. "Towards a Taxonomy of Academic Misconduct: The Case of Business School Research," SPRU Working Paper Series 2019-02, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    18. Drivas, Kyriakos & Kremmydas, Dimitris, 2020. "The Matthew effect of a journal's ranking," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(4).
    19. Malhotra, Naresh K, 1984. "Reflections on the Information Overload Paradigm in Consumer Decision Making [Perspectives on Information Overload]," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 10(4), pages 436-440, March.
    20. Partha, Dasgupta & David, Paul A., 1994. "Toward a new economics of science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(5), pages 487-521, September.
    21. Furman, Jeffrey L. & Jensen, Kyle & Murray, Fiona, 2012. "Governing knowledge in the scientific community: Exploring the role of retractions in biomedicine," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 276-290.
    22. Per O. Seglen, 1992. "The skewness of science," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 43(9), pages 628-638, October.
    23. Neal S Young, 2008. "Why Current Publication May Distort Science," Working Papers id:1757, eSocialSciences.
    24. Iman Tahamtan & Askar Safipour Afshar & Khadijeh Ahamdzadeh, 2016. "Factors affecting number of citations: a comprehensive review of the literature," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(3), pages 1195-1225, June.
    25. Craig, Russell & Cox, Adam & Tourish, Dennis & Thorpe, Alistair, 2020. "Using retracted journal articles in psychology to understand research misconduct in the social sciences: What is to be done?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(4).
    26. Megan L Head & Luke Holman & Rob Lanfear & Andrew T Kahn & Michael D Jennions, 2015. "The Extent and Consequences of P-Hacking in Science," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(3), pages 1-15, March.
    27. Neal S Young & John P A Ioannidis & Omar Al-Ubaydli, 2008. "Why Current Publication Practices May Distort Science," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(10), pages 1-5, October.
    28. Bruns, Stephan B. & Asanov, Igor & Bode, Rasmus & Dunger, Melanie & Funk, Christoph & Hassan, Sherif M. & Hauschildt, Julia & Heinisch, Dominik & Kempa, Karol & König, Johannes & Lips, Johannes & Verb, 2019. "Reporting errors and biases in published empirical findings: Evidence from innovation research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    29. David B. Allison & Andrew W. Brown & Brandon J. George & Kathryn A. Kaiser, 2016. "Reproducibility: A tragedy of errors," Nature, Nature, vol. 530(7588), pages 27-29, February.
    30. Richard A. Bettis, 2012. "The search for asterisks: Compromised statistical tests and flawed theories," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(1), pages 108-113, January.
    31. Michael Spence, 1973. "Job Market Signaling," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 87(3), pages 355-374.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Cefis, Elena & Coad, Alex & Lucini-Paioni, Alessandro, 2023. "Landmarks as lighthouses: firms' innovation and modes of exit during the business cycle," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(8).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Salandra, Rossella, 2018. "Knowledge dissemination in clinical trials: Exploring influences of institutional support and type of innovation on selective reporting," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(7), pages 1215-1228.
    2. Mohan, Vijay, 2019. "On the use of blockchain-based mechanisms to tackle academic misconduct," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    3. Horton, Joanne & Krishna Kumar, Dhanya & Wood, Anthony, 2020. "Detecting academic fraud using Benford law: The case of Professor James Hunton," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(8).
    4. Kiri, Bralind & Lacetera, Nicola & Zirulia, Lorenzo, 2018. "Above a swamp: A theory of high-quality scientific production," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(5), pages 827-839.
    5. Bruns, Stephan B. & Asanov, Igor & Bode, Rasmus & Dunger, Melanie & Funk, Christoph & Hassan, Sherif M. & Hauschildt, Julia & Heinisch, Dominik & Kempa, Karol & König, Johannes & Lips, Johannes & Verb, 2019. "Reporting errors and biases in published empirical findings: Evidence from innovation research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    6. Mueller-Langer, Frank & Fecher, Benedikt & Harhoff, Dietmar & Wagner, Gert G., 2019. "Replication studies in economics—How many and which papers are chosen for replication, and why?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 62-83.
    7. Gilles Grolleau & Naoufel Mzoughi, 2022. "How research institutions can make the best of scandals – once they become unavoidable," Post-Print hal-03908837, HAL.
    8. Khezr, Peyman & Mohan, Vijay, 2022. "The vexing but persistent problem of authorship misconduct in research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(3).
    9. Walsh, John P. & Lee, You-Na & Tang, Li, 2019. "Pathogenic organization in science: Division of labor and retractions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 444-461.
    10. Azoulay, Pierre & Bonatti, Alessandro & Krieger, Joshua L., 2017. "The career effects of scandal: Evidence from scientific retractions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(9), pages 1552-1569.
    11. Cefis, Elena & Coad, Alex & Lucini-Paioni, Alessandro, 2023. "Landmarks as lighthouses: firms' innovation and modes of exit during the business cycle," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(8).
    12. Mangirdas Morkunas & Elzė Rudienė & Lukas Giriūnas & Laura Daučiūnienė, 2020. "Assessment of Factors Causing Bias in Marketing- Related Publications," Publications, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-16, October.
    13. Glenna, Leland & Bruce, Analena, 2021. "Suborning science for profit: Monsanto, glyphosate, and private science research misconduct," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(7).
    14. Buehling, Kilian, 2021. "Changing research topic trends as an effect of publication rankings – The case of German economists and the Handelsblatt Ranking," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3).
    15. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John List & Claire Mackevicius & Min Sok Lee & Dana Suskind, 2019. "How Can Experiments Play a Greater Role in Public Policy? 12 Proposals from an Economic Model of Scaling," Artefactual Field Experiments 00679, The Field Experiments Website.
    16. Craig, Russell & Cox, Adam & Tourish, Dennis & Thorpe, Alistair, 2020. "Using retracted journal articles in psychology to understand research misconduct in the social sciences: What is to be done?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(4).
    17. Ferdinand Thies & Sören Wallbach & Michael Wessel & Markus Besler & Alexander Benlian, 2022. "Initial coin offerings and the cryptocurrency hype - the moderating role of exogenous and endogenous signals," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 32(3), pages 1691-1705, September.
    18. Hussinger, Katrin & Pellens, Maikel, 2019. "Guilt by association: How scientific misconduct harms prior collaborators," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 516-530.
    19. Jascha-Alexander Koch & Michael Siering, 2019. "The recipe of successful crowdfunding campaigns," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 29(4), pages 661-679, December.
    20. Danny Zhao‐Xiang Huang, 2022. "An integrated theory of the firm approach to environmental, social and governance performance," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 62(S1), pages 1567-1598, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:50:y:2021:i:1:s0048733320302055. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/respol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.