IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0110418.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why Are Medical and Health-Related Studies Not Being Published? A Systematic Review of Reasons Given by Investigators

Author

Listed:
  • Fujian Song
  • Yoon Loke
  • Lee Hooper

Abstract

Objective: About half of medical and health-related studies are not published. We conducted a systematic review of reports on reasons given by investigators for not publishing their studies in peer-reviewed journals. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and SCOPUS (until 13/09/2013), and references of identified articles were searched to identify reports of surveys that provided data on reasons given by investigators for not publishing studies. The proportion of non-submission and reasons for non-publication was calculated using the number of unpublished studies as the denominator. Because of heterogeneity across studies, quantitative pooling was not conducted. Exploratory subgroup analyses were conducted. Results: We included 54 survey reports. Data from 38 included reports were available to estimate proportions of at least one reason given for not publishing studies. The proportion of non-submission among unpublished studies ranged from 55% to 100%, with a median of 85%. The reasons given by investigators for not publishing their studies included: lack of time or low priority (median 33%), studies being incomplete (median 15%), study not for publication (median 14%), manuscript in preparation or under review (median 12%), unimportant or negative result (median 12%), poor study quality or design (median 11%), fear of rejection (median 12%), rejection by journals (median 6%), author or co-author problems (median 10%), and sponsor or funder problems (median 9%). In general, the frequency of reasons given for non-publication was not associated with the source of unpublished studies, study design, or time when a survey was conducted. Conclusions: Non-submission of studies for publication remains the main cause of non-publication of studies. Measures to reduce non-publication of studies and alternative models of research dissemination need to be developed to address the main reasons given by investigators for not publishing their studies, such as lack of time or low priority and fear of being rejected by journals.

Suggested Citation

  • Fujian Song & Yoon Loke & Lee Hooper, 2014. "Why Are Medical and Health-Related Studies Not Being Published? A Systematic Review of Reasons Given by Investigators," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(10), pages 1-8, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0110418
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0110418
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0110418
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0110418&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0110418?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hendrik P. van Dalen & Kène Henkens, 2012. "Intended and unintended consequences of a publish‐or‐perish culture: A worldwide survey," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(7), pages 1282-1293, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Stephan Puehringer & Johanna Rath & Teresa Griesebner, 2021. "The political economy of academic publishing: On the commodification of a public good," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(6), pages 1-21, June.
    2. Sujai Shivakumar, 2017. "Innovation as a Collective Action Challenge," Advances in Austrian Economics, in: The Austrian and Bloomington Schools of Political Economy, volume 22, pages 159-173, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    3. Hendrik P. van Dalen, 2019. "Values of Economists Matter in the Art and Science of Economics," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(3), pages 472-499, August.
    4. Dell'Anno, Roberto & Caferra, Rocco & Morone, Andrea, 2020. "A “Trojan Horse” in the peer-review process of fee-charging economic journals," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(3).
    5. Shibayama, Sotaro, 2019. "Sustainable development of science and scientists: Academic training in life science labs," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 676-692.
    6. Hendrik P. van Dalen & Kène Henkens, 2012. "What is on a Demographer’s Mind?," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 26(16), pages 363-408.
    7. Michael Carolan, 2024. "Do universities support solutions-oriented collaborative research? Constraints to wicked problems scholarship in higher education," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-12, December.
    8. Abramo, Giovanni & D'Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea & Grilli, Leonardo, 2021. "The effects of citation-based research evaluation schemes on self-citation behavior," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(4).
    9. Horbach, S.P.J.M.(Serge) & Halffman, W.(Willem), 2019. "The extent and causes of academic text recycling or ‘self-plagiarism’," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 492-502.
    10. Hendrik P. Dalen, 2021. "How the publish-or-perish principle divides a science: the case of economists," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1675-1694, February.
    11. Julia Heuritsch, 2021. "Reflexive Behaviour: How Publication Pressure Affects Research Quality in Astronomy," Publications, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-23, November.
    12. Daniele Fanelli & Rodrigo Costas & Vincent Larivière, 2015. "Misconduct Policies, Academic Culture and Career Stage, Not Gender or Pressures to Publish, Affect Scientific Integrity," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-18, June.
    13. van Dalen, Hendrik Peter, 2020. "How the Publish-or-Perish Principle Divides a Science : The Case of Academic Economists," Other publications TiSEM 6fbb6b92-0e06-4271-b6e7-3, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    14. repec:hal:journl:hal-04666299 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. van Dalen, Hendrik Peter, 2021. "How the publish-or-perish principle divides a science: The case of economists," Other publications TiSEM a6a5a855-bb5a-4d52-a841-3, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    16. Christopher W Belter, 2014. "Measuring the Value of Research Data: A Citation Analysis of Oceanographic Data Sets," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(3), pages 1-9, March.
    17. Christian Schneijderberg & Nicolai Götze & Lars Müller, 2022. "A study of 25 years of publication outputs in the German academic profession," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(1), pages 1-28, January.
    18. Tony Ross-Hellauer & Thomas Klebel & Petr Knoth & Nancy Pontika, 2024. "Value dissonance in research(er) assessment: individual and perceived institutional priorities in review, promotion, and tenure," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 51(3), pages 337-351.
    19. Stephan Puehringer & Georg Wolfmayr, 2023. "Competitive Performativity of (Academic) Social Networks. The subjectivation of Competition on ResearchGate, Google Scholar and Twitter," ICAE Working Papers 150, Johannes Kepler University, Institute for Comprehensive Analysis of the Economy.
    20. Tom Van der Stocken & Jean Hugé & Evelien Deboelpaep & Maarten P. M. Vanhove & Luc Janssens de Bisthoven & Nico Koedam, 2016. "Academic capacity building: holding up a mirror," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(3), pages 1277-1280, March.
    21. K. Hilken & K.J.M. De Jaegher & M. Jegers, 2013. "Strategic Framing in Contracts," Working Papers 13-04, Utrecht School of Economics.

    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:pone00:0110418. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.