IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pmed00/1000038.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Unbiased Scientific Record Should Be Everyone's Agenda

Author

Listed:
  • The PLoS Medicine Editors

Abstract

This month's editorial discusses ways in which the process of publishing scientific research can be inappropriately influenced by varied forms of bias and the effects of competing interests. The editors propose five ways in which individuals involved in the publication process can mitigate the effects of biased agendas on the published scientific record.

Suggested Citation

  • The PLoS Medicine Editors, 2009. "An Unbiased Scientific Record Should Be Everyone's Agenda," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(2), pages 1-3, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1000038
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000038
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1000038
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1000038&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000038?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
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. The PLoS Medicine Editors, 2009. "Ghostwriting: The Dirty Little Secret of Medical Publishing That Just Got Bigger," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(9), pages 1-2, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pmed00:1000038. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: plosmedicine (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/ .

    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.