Publication bias

Nature

Academic publications are biased because they often accept only articles reporting positive research results; those dealing with exciting, novel or fashionable subjects are even more likely to get published. It is rarer that articles with negative results are published, even though they valorize the scientific method.

Incidence

A 2019 meta-analysis in *BMJ Open* found that, across medical research, studies with positive results were 2.5 times more likely to be published than those with negative or inconclusive findings. Publication bias is particularly prevalent in clinical trials, with a 2015 study estimating that up to 50% of registered trials remain unpublished, skewing the evidence base for healthcare decisions worldwide.
A notable example occurred in 2004, when it was revealed that several pharmaceutical companies, including GlaxoSmithKline, had failed to publish negative clinical trial results on antidepressant use in adolescents in the United States, leading to regulatory investigations and public outcry.

Claim

Publication bias is a critical issue that undermines the integrity of scientific research. When only positive results are published, the true efficacy of treatments and interventions remains obscured, leading to misguided policies and wasted resources. This selective reporting distorts the scientific literature, misinforms practitioners, and ultimately harms patients. We must confront this pervasive problem to ensure that all research—regardless of outcome—is shared, fostering a more accurate and trustworthy scientific community. The stakes are too high to ignore!

Counter-claim

Publication bias is often overstated as a significant issue. The scientific community is robust enough to self-correct, and the vast majority of research is published transparently. Researchers are increasingly aware of the importance of sharing all results, positive or negative. Focusing excessively on publication bias distracts from more pressing issues in research, such as funding disparities and methodological flaws. In reality, the integrity of science remains intact, and the alarm over publication bias is largely unfounded.