According to the latest edition of Sharon Begley's Science Journal (published in the Wall Street Journal, subscription required), some scientists are creating journals that highlight the negative results of clinical trials. They are doing this partly to respond to analyses indicating that mainstream publications tend to highlight positive study outcomes.
According to Lee Sigelman of George Washington University, "[what] we read in the journals may bear only the slightest resemblance" to the real world."
Commentary: This is an interesting trend. If it gains traction and some "negative" journals become prestigious, I could see journalists and others turning to these publications to learn more about therapies abandoned by drug firms or spectacular claims touted by academic scientists. Will healthcare communicators one day have to conduct searches of these types of publications to determine if there is conflicting data regarding a study they are touting? Only time will tell.
According to Lee Sigelman of George Washington University, "[what] we read in the journals may bear only the slightest resemblance" to the real world."
Commentary: This is an interesting trend. If it gains traction and some "negative" journals become prestigious, I could see journalists and others turning to these publications to learn more about therapies abandoned by drug firms or spectacular claims touted by academic scientists. Will healthcare communicators one day have to conduct searches of these types of publications to determine if there is conflicting data regarding a study they are touting? Only time will tell.
Comment Preview