Design, setting and participants: A prospective cohort study of manuscripts reporting original research submitted to three major biomedical journals (BMJ and the Lancet [UK] and Annals of Internal Medicine [USA]) between January and April 2003 and between November 2003 and February 2004. Case reports on single patients were excluded.
Results: Of 1107 manuscripts enrolled in the study, 68 (6%) were accepted, 777 (70%) were rejected outright, and 262 (24%) were rejected after peer review. Higher methodological quality scores were associated with an increased chance of acceptance (odds ratio [OR], 1.39 per 0.1 point increase in quality score; 95% CI, 1.16–1.67; P < 0.001), after controlling for study design and journal. In a multivariate logistic regression model, manuscripts were more likely to be published if they reported a randomised controlled trial (RCT) (OR, 2.40; 95% CI, 1.21–4.80); used descriptive or qualitative analytical methods (OR, 2.85; 95% CI, 1.51–5.37); disclosed any funding source (OR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.01–3.60); or had a corresponding author living in the same country as that of the publishing journal (OR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.14–3.46). There was a non-significant trend towards manuscripts with larger sample size (≥ 73) being published (OR, 2.01; 95% CI, 0.94–4.32). After adjustment for other study characteristics, having statistically significant results did not improve the chance of a study being published (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.34–1.96).
Conclusions: Submitted manuscripts are more likely to be published if they have high methodological quality, RCT study design, descriptive or qualitative analytical methods and disclosure of any funding source, and if the corresponding author lives in the same country as that of the publishing journal. Larger sample size may also increase the chance of acceptance for publication.
- 1. Iverson C, Flanagin A, Fontanarosa PB, et al. American Medical Association manual of style. A guide for authors and editors. 9th ed. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1998.
- 2. Turcotte C, Drolet P, Girard M. Study design, originality and overall consistency influence acceptance or rejection of manuscripts submitted to the Journal. Can J Anaesth 2004; 51: 549-556.
- 3. Stroup DF, Thacker SB, Olson CM, et al. Characteristics of meta-analyses related to acceptance for publication in a medical journal. J Clin Epidemiol 2001; 54: 655-660.
- 4. Kassirer JP, Campion EW. Peer review. Crude and understudied, but indispensable. JAMA 1994; 272: 96-97.
- 5. Dickersin K, Chan S, Chalmers TC, et al. Publication bias and clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1987; 8: 343-353.
- 6. Dickersin K, Min YI, Meinert CL. Factors influencing publication of research results. Follow-up of applications submitted to two institutional review boards. JAMA 1992; 267: 374-378.
- 7. Easterbrook PJ, Berlin JA, Gopalan R, Matthews DR. Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet 1991; 337: 867-872.
- 8. Ioannidis JP. Effect of the statistical significance of results on the time to completion and publication of randomized efficacy trials. JAMA 1998; 279: 281-286.
- 9. Weber EJ, Callaham ML, Wears RL, et al. Unpublished research from a medical specialty meeting: why investigators fail to publish. JAMA 1998; 280: 257-259.
- 10. Chalmers I, Adams M, Dickersin K, et al. A cohort study of summary reports of controlled trials. JAMA 1990; 263: 1401-1405.
- 11. Olson CM, Rennie D, Cook D, et al. Publication bias in editorial decision making. JAMA 2002; 287: 2825-2828.
- 12. Institute for Scientific Information. Science citation index: journal citation reports. Philadelphia, Pa: ISI, 2004.
- 13. Ulrich’s international periodicals directory. 42nd ed. New York: Bowker, 2004. Available at: http://www.ulrichsweb.com/UlrichsWeb (accessed Dec 2005).
- 14. World Bank. Country data and statistics. 2005. Available at: http://www.worldbank.org (accessed Jun 2005).
- 15. Cho MK, Bero LA. Instruments for assessing the quality of drug studies published in the medical literature. JAMA 1994; 272: 101-104.
- 16. Moher D, Jadad AR, Nichol G, et al. Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: an annotated bibliography of scales and checklists. Control Clin Trials 1995; 16: 62-73.
- 17. Juni P, Witschi A, Bloch R, Egger M. The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. JAMA 1999; 282: 1054-1060.
- 18. Barnes DE, Bero LA. Why review articles on the health effects of passive smoking reach different conclusions. JAMA 1998; 279: 1566-1570.
- 19. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH. Validation of an index of the quality of review articles. J Clin Epidemiol 1991; 44: 1271-1278.
- 20. Lee KP, Schotland M, Bacchetti P, Bero LA. Association of journal quality indicators with methodological quality of clinical research articles. JAMA 2002; 287: 2805-2808.
- 21. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 1995; 273: 408-412.
- 22. Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, et al. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet 1998; 352: 609-613.
- 23. Balk EM, Bonis PA, Moskowitz H, et al. Correlation of quality measures with estimates of treatment effect in meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. JAMA 2002; 287: 2973-2982.
- 24. Patsopoulos NA, Analatos AA, Ioannidis JP. Relative citation impact of various study designs in the health sciences. JAMA 2005; 293: 2362-2366.
- 25. Als-Nielsen B, Chen W, Gluud C, Kjaergard LL. Association of funding and conclusions in randomized drug trials: a reflection of treatment effect or adverse events? JAMA 2003; 290: 921-928.
- 26. Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, Clark O. Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ 2003; 326: 1167-1170.
- 27. Bekelman JE, Li Y, Gross CP. Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review. JAMA 2003; 289: 454-465.
- 28. Schroter S, Morris J, Chaudhry S, et al. Does the type of competing interest statement affect readers’ perceptions of the credibility of research? Randomised trial. BMJ 2004; 328: 742-743.
- 29. Chaudhry S, Schroter S, Smith R, Morris J. Does declaration of competing interests affect readers’ perceptions? A randomised trial. BMJ 2002; 325: 1391-1392.
- 30. Ernst E, Keinbacher T. Chauvinism. Nature 1991; 352: 560.
- 31. Link AM. US and non-US submissions: an analysis of reviewer bias. JAMA 1998; 280: 246-247.
- 32. Ioannidis JP, Cappelleri JC, Sacks HS, Lau J. The relationship between study design, results, and reporting of randomized clinical trials of HIV infection. Control Clin Trials 1997; 18: 431-444.
Publication of your online response is subject to the Medical Journal of Australia's editorial discretion. You will be notified by email within five working days should your response be accepted.