On 31 October
2010 21:27, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net> wrote:
I don't think it is worth mentioning, unless
every time it is
mentioned
it
is done in a way to tell readers that this is not only normal, it is
required.
Risker/Anne
The history of this issue has involved manufacturers taking control of
the studies to the extent that unfavorable results were sometimes not
published while favorable results were. Journal editors cracked down on
that, see:
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/165/6/786
Fred
Well, that has nothing to do with who paid for the study. It has to do
with
whether or not they reported all of the studies that they did. The two
are
not connected. What happens, too, when studies are carried out but the
scientists cannot find someone to peer review them or publish them, even
with massive critique? This happens a lot. Does that mean the study is
unreported, or simply that nobody wants to waste time or space on them?
Risker/Anne
You don't seem to have read the cited article. And to be changing the
subject. Peer review decides what is to be published, based on quality
and significance. Errors are made as scientists hold views as to what
that is at any particular time and venue which may be more or less
enlightened.
Fred