Skip to main content
Erschienen in: International Urogynecology Journal 12/2007

01.12.2007 | Editorial

Authors should publish their raw data

verfasst von: Nicolaas J. D. Nagelkerke, Roos M. D. Bernsen, Diaa E. E. Rizk

Erschienen in: International Urogynecology Journal | Ausgabe 12/2007

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Excerpt

Most publications in today’s biomedical journals are original research articles that, by definition, are based on novel data. Exceptions are hypothesis papers, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, clinical guidelines, editorials, clinical opinions/updates, case reports, etc. Normally, the procedure of producing these original publications is fairly standard: Authors write a research protocol, obtain ethical approval, apply for funding, and carry out the interventions and observations or measurements. The data thus generated are analyzed in a way that seems appropriate for the research questions at hand and often involves professional statisticians, and conclusions are subsequently written in the form of a manuscript that is submitted to a journal. Peer reviewers then assess the content and judge whether the work is original, of sufficient merit, and scientifically relevant. If accepted for publication, the manuscript will be published as an article that can be read and used by the medical community at large for further research or patient care. However, reviewers and journal editors normally base their decisions on the data provided in the submitted manuscript alone. With rare exceptions, neither sees the raw data collected and very rarely will the readers also have access to these data after publication. Instead, all that is provided in the manuscript are aggregate statistical measures such as means, standard deviations, correlation coefficients, etc. or graphs such as histograms, box-and-whisker plots, etc. In addition, findings from more intricate statistical analysis such as adjusted odds ratios are also increasingly reported in recent publications. These statistical measures, graphs, and analyses are usually chosen to support the conclusions drawn by the authors and are therefore intrinsically selective. As a direct result, it is normally difficult for editors, reviewers, and readers to objectively gauge whether the conclusions drawn by the authors are fully justified by the data that they have collected [1]. Alternative analyses that would validate or test those conclusions cannot also be carried out by independent or extrinsic scientists. It is actually strange that we, the scientific community, are so comfortable with this submission/peer review/publication cycle that we rarely question it. This is unique because regulatory authorities such as the FDA would not normally license a new drug without full access to the primary data of the studies carried out by the pharmaceutical industry in support of their application [2]. Despite the fact that admission of incorrect findings to the scientific body of knowledge can be just as detrimental as permitting the use of ineffective drugs and that the whole scientific process can be fallible, we continue to fail to apply the same standards [35]. …
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Herbison P (2007) How to make your article more acceptable for the statistical reviewer. Neurourol Urodynam 26:318–322CrossRef Herbison P (2007) How to make your article more acceptable for the statistical reviewer. Neurourol Urodynam 26:318–322CrossRef
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Kassirer JP, Campion EW (1994) Peer review: crude and understudied, but indispensable. JAMA 272:96–97PubMedCrossRef Kassirer JP, Campion EW (1994) Peer review: crude and understudied, but indispensable. JAMA 272:96–97PubMedCrossRef
4.
Zurück zum Zitat LaFollette MC (1996) Stealing into print: fraud, plagiarism, and misconduct in scientific publishing. University of California Press, Berkeley LaFollette MC (1996) Stealing into print: fraud, plagiarism, and misconduct in scientific publishing. University of California Press, Berkeley
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Ioannidis JP (2005) Why most published research findings are false? PLoS Med 8:e124CrossRef Ioannidis JP (2005) Why most published research findings are false? PLoS Med 8:e124CrossRef
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Hartemink N, Boshuizen HC, Nagelkerke NJ, Jacobs MA, van Houwelingen HC (2006) Combining risk estimates from observational studies with different exposure cutpoints: a meta-analysis on body mass index and diabetes type 2. Am J Epidemiol 163:1042–1052PubMedCrossRef Hartemink N, Boshuizen HC, Nagelkerke NJ, Jacobs MA, van Houwelingen HC (2006) Combining risk estimates from observational studies with different exposure cutpoints: a meta-analysis on body mass index and diabetes type 2. Am J Epidemiol 163:1042–1052PubMedCrossRef
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Lose G (2007) Urogynecological research: current and future developments. Int Urogynecol J 18:599–601CrossRef Lose G (2007) Urogynecological research: current and future developments. Int Urogynecol J 18:599–601CrossRef
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Levy D, Brink S (2005) A change of heart: how the people of framingham, massachusetts, helped unravel the mysteries of cardiovascular disease. Knopf, New York Levy D, Brink S (2005) A change of heart: how the people of framingham, massachusetts, helped unravel the mysteries of cardiovascular disease. Knopf, New York
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Dietz HP (2007) Bias in research and conflict of interest: why should we care? Int Urogynecol J 18:241–243CrossRef Dietz HP (2007) Bias in research and conflict of interest: why should we care? Int Urogynecol J 18:241–243CrossRef
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, Clark O (2003) Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ 326:1167–1170PubMedCrossRef Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, Clark O (2003) Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ 326:1167–1170PubMedCrossRef
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Rizk DE (2007) Publication ethics: science at its best and always informative. Int Urogynecol J 18(7):715–717CrossRef Rizk DE (2007) Publication ethics: science at its best and always informative. Int Urogynecol J 18(7):715–717CrossRef
19.
Metadaten
Titel
Authors should publish their raw data
verfasst von
Nicolaas J. D. Nagelkerke
Roos M. D. Bernsen
Diaa E. E. Rizk
Publikationsdatum
01.12.2007
Verlag
Springer-Verlag
Erschienen in
International Urogynecology Journal / Ausgabe 12/2007
Print ISSN: 0937-3462
Elektronische ISSN: 1433-3023
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-007-0464-z

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 12/2007

International Urogynecology Journal 12/2007 Zur Ausgabe

Update Gynäkologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert – ganz bequem per eMail.