Currents in Pharmaceutical Research (2025) 3:2
DOI: https://doi.org/10.32350/cpr.32.01
Review Open Access

Publication Bias: A Brief Concept Note

 DOI:

ORCIDMuhammad Ali*

Department of Pharmacy Practice and Pharmaceutics, Faculty of Pharmacy, Salim Habib University, Karachi, Pakistan

*Corresponding author: [email protected]

Published: 20-04-2025

1. INTRODUCTION

The term "publication bias," often known as the "file drawer problem," refers to the tendency in the published literature to favor studies with positive or significant outcomes over those with negative or insignificant outcomes [1, 2]. As a result, the published literature on a particular topic may appear incomplete, fabricated, and false [1]. Robert Rosenthal was the first to introduce the term "file drawer problem" in 1979. Afterwards, in the 1980s, the use of this term became very common in scientific and research communities [3]. When researchers are more likely to submit and publishers, editors, and reviewers are more willing to accept positive or significant results as compared to negative or insignificant ones, this is known as positive-results bias, a form of publication bias [4]. The ethical guidelines for editors, reviewers, publishers, and researchers about publication bias have been established by the World Medical Association, the International Committee of Medical Journals, and the Committee on Publication Ethics [5, 6]. It is a very common issue in research publications, especially in meta-analyses and systematic reviews, affecting the originality and worth of the published scientific conclusions [7–9]. The validity and importance of literature, particularly the literature related to psychology and medicine, are severely impacted by the publication bias, according to one study [10]. Publication bias challenges the integrity of scientific knowledge and research [11].

2. IMPORTANT ASPECTS AND CAUSES OF PUBLICATION BIAS

Studies with significant findings are more likely to be submitted by researchers and published in journals. Such studies comprise selective research publications [12–14]. Selective reporting occurs when researchers emphasize results that support their hypotheses, while downplaying contradicting findings [15–18]. An important contributing factor of publication bias is that studies conducted in other languages such as Japanese, Chinese, and French are less likely to get published, while English-language studies have a higher probability of getting published [19–22]. Similarly, another dimension of publication bias is selective citation or citation bias. Indeed, research with favorable outcomes is more likely to receive citations [23–26]. Published research may exaggerate the actual impact of a treatment or phenomenon, contributing to publication bias [27]. It can result in biased meta-analyses, which can misrepresent clinical research, practices, and policy issues. It can also result in the duplication of research efforts, as researchers may mistakenly duplicate studies that have already been completed but not yet published [28–30]. Publication bias can be reduced by the registration of clinical trials,  reducing the number of selective publications and saving millions of lives [28, 30, 31]. Open-access publishing has become very common in today’s world. It increases the visibility and accessibility of all research literature, regardless of their results [32, 33].

3. CONCLUSION

Publication bias, however, poses a substantial threat to the integrity of scientific research, impacting the validity and reliability of the findings. Selective reporting of statistically significant data may result in an exaggeration of treatment effects, misleading meta-analyses, and inappropriate clinical practices. Therefore, to ensure a more balanced representation of scientific data, researchers, policymakers, reviewers, academicians, and editors must actively address publication bias.

4. SIGNIFICANCE

This concept note is helpful for publishers, young editors, reviewers, and aspiring scientific researchers to aquaint themselves with the notion of publication bias. As a researcher, I believe this is a critical aspect of scientific publishing and writing. It should be included in postgraduate curricula, so it may help the aforementioned group of people.

Author Contribution

Muhammad Ali: sole author

Conflict of Interest

The author of the manuscript have no financial or non-financial conflict of interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.

Data Availability Statement

Data availability is not applicable as no new data has been used.

Funding Details

No funding has been received for this research.

Generative AI Disclosure Statement

The authors did not used any type of generative artificial intelligence software for this research.

REFERENCES

  1. Sutton AJ. Publication bias. In: Cooper H, Hedges LV, Valentine JC, eds. The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis. Russell Sage Foundation; 2009:435–452.
  2. Franco A, Malhotra N, Simonovits G. Publication bias in the social sciences: unlocking the file drawer. Science. 2014;345(6203):1502–1505. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1255484
  3. Marks‐Anglin A, Chen Y. A historical review of publication bias. Res Synth Methods. 2020;11(6):725–742. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1452
  4. DeVito NJ, Goldacre B. Catalogue of bias: publication bias. BMJ Evid Based Med. 2019;24:53–54. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2018-111107
  5. Ekmekci PE. An increasing problem in publication ethics: publication bias and editors’ role in avoiding it. Med Health Care Philos. 2017;20:171–178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-017-9767-0
  6. Matías-Guiu J, García-Ramos R. Editorial bias in scientific publications. Neurol. 2011;26(1):1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2173-5808(11)70001-3
  7. Ahmed I, Sutton AJ, Riley RD. Assessment of publication bias, selection bias, and unavailable data in meta-analyses using individual participant data: adatabase survey. BMJ. 2012;344:e7762. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d7762
  8. Lin L, Chu H, Quantifying publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics. 2018;74(3):785–794. https://doi.org/10.1111/biom.12817
  9. Page MJ, Sterne JAC, Higgins JPT, Egger M. Investigating and dealing with publication bias and other reporting biases in meta‐analyses of health research: a review. Res Synth Methods. 2021;12(2):248–259. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1468
  10. Van Aert RC, Wicherts JM, Van Assen MALM. Publication bias examined in meta-analyses from psychology and medicine: a meta-meta-analysis. PloS One. 2019;14(4):e0215052. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0215052
  11. Kaban LB, Posnick JC. Publication bias and data integrity: we all have a role to play. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2021;79(8):1595–1596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2021.02.041
  12. van Assen MALM, van Aert RCM, Nuijten MB, Wicherts JM. Why publishing everything is more effective than selective publishing of statistically significant results. PLoS One. 2014;9(1):e84896. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0084896
  13. Every‐Palmer S, Howick J. How evidence‐based medicine is failing due to biased trials and selective publication. J Eval Clin Pract. 2014;20(6):908–914. https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.12147
  14. Andrews I, Kasy M. Identification of and correction for publication bias. Am Econ Rev. 2019;109(8):2766–2794. https://doi.org/1257/aer.20180310
  15. Komukai K, Sugita S, Fujimoto S. Publication bias and selective outcome reporting in randomized controlled trials related to rehabilitation: a literature review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2024;105(1):150–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2023.06.006
  16. Raghav KPS, Mahajan S, Yao JC, et al. From protocols to publications: a study in selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials in oncology. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(31):3583–3590. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2015.62.4148
  17. Page MJ, Higgins JPT. Rethinking the assessment of risk of bias due to selective reporting: a cross-sectional study. Syst Rev. 2016;5:e108. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0289-2
  18. Wayant C, Scheckel C, Hicks C, et al. Evidence of selective reporting bias in hematology journals: A systematic review. PloS One. 2017;12(6):e0178379. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178379
  19. Grzybowski A, Kanclerz P. Language bias and methodological issues in determining reliable evidence for systematic reviews. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2019;137(1):118–119. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2018.4945
  20. González-Dambrauskas S, Salluh JIF, Machado FR, Rotta AT. Science over language: a plea to consider language bias in scientific publishing. Crit Care Sci. 2024;e20240084en. https://doi.org/10.62675/2965-2774.20240084-en
  21. Rovira C, Codina L, Lopezosa C. Language bias in the Google Scholar ranking algorithm. Future Internet. 2021;13(2):e31. https://doi.org/10.3390/fi13020031
  22. Konno K, Akasaka M, Koshida C, et al. Ignoring non‐English‐language studies may bias ecological meta‐analyses. Ecol Evol. 2020;10(13):6373–6384. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.6368
  23. Jannot AS, Agoritsas T, Gayet-Ageron A, Perneger TV. Citation bias favoring statistically significant studies was present in medical research. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(3):296–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.09.015
  24. Urlings MJE, Duyx B, Swaen GMH, Bouter LM, Zeegers MP. Citation bias and other determinants of citation in biomedical research: findings from six citation networks. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;132:71–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.11.019
  25. Gøtzsche PC. Citation bias: questionable research practice or scientific misconduct? J R Soc Med. 2022;115(1):31–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/01410768221075881
  26. Stelmakh I, Rastogi C, Liu R, Chawla S, Echenique F, Shah NB. Cite-seeing and reviewing: a study on citation bias in peer review. Plos One. 2023;18(7):e0283980. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283980
  27. Jennions MD, Lortie CJ, Rosenberg MS, Rothsteinet HR. Publication and related biases. In: Koricheva J, Gurevitch J, Mengersen K, eds. Handbook of Meta-Analysis in Ecology and Evolution. Princeton University Press.; 2013:207–236. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400846184-016
  28. Joober R, Schmitz N, Annable L, Boksa P. Publication bias: what are the challenges and can they be overcome? J Psychiatry Neurosci. 2012;37(3):149–152 https://doi.org/10.1503/jpn.120065
  29. Wager E, Williams P. “Hardly worth the effort”? medical journals’ policies and their editors’ and publishers’ views on trial registration and publication bias: quantitative and qualitative study. BMJ. 2013;347:ef5248. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f5248
  30. Hopewell S, Loudon K, Clarke MJ, Oxman AD, Dickersinet K. Publication bias in clinical trials due to statistical significance or direction of trial results. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;1:e https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000006.pub3
  31. Huić M, Marušić M, Marušić A. Completeness and changes in registered data and reporting bias of randomized controlled trials in ICMJE journals after trial registration policy. PloS One. 2011;6(9):e25258. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0025258
  32. Sengupta P. Open access publication: academic colonialism or knowledge philanthropy? Geoforum. 2021;118:203–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2020.04.001
  33. Morillo F. Is open access publication useful for all research fields? presence of funding, collaboration and impact. Scientometrics. 2020;125:689–716. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03652-w