Positive Health Online
Your Country
![[Image: http://www.abundanceandhealth.co.uk]](/img/original/BannerAvatar/2836.df7d2315253110ff5b3a566f94871f99.jpg "http://www.abundanceandhealth.co.uk")
![[Image: https://www.water-for-health.co.uk/]](/img/original/BannerAvatar/4046.12831f50177f8848ee87b8e94411d6b3.jpg "https://www.water-for-health.co.uk/")
![[Image: http://www.balens.co.uk]](/img/original/BannerAvatar/2148.50367fa908013fae0a7f1a171543ef92.jpg "http://www.balens.co.uk")
![[Image: http://www.drsgoodman.com/books-goodman/52-nutrition-and-cancer]](/img/original/BannerAvatar/1859.1296090fd8385e7ceff51c8011559097.jpg "http://www.drsgoodman.com/books-goodman/52-nutrition-and-cancer")
Research: RESCH, ERNST and GARRO
Listed in Issue 56
Abstract
RESCH, ERNST and GARROW, Forschungsinstitute fur Balneologie und Kuortwissenschaft, Bad Elster, Germany conducted a clinical trial of reviewer bias against an unconventional medicine.
Background
The study was designed to test the hypothesis that experts who review papers for publications are prejudiced against unconventional therapies.
Methodology
Two versions of a 'short report' (A and B) were produced concerning the treatment of obesity. Reports A and B were identical except for the nature of the invention with version A related to a conventional treatment and version B to an unconventional treatment. Three hundred and ninety-eight reviewers were randomized to receive one or other of the reviews for peer review. The primary outcome measures were the reviewers rating of importance (scale1-5) and their verdict regarding rejection or acceptance of the paper.
Results
The overall response rate was 41% and 141 assessment forms were suitable for statistical analysis. There was a statistically significant difference in favour of the orthodox version with an odds ratio of 3.01 (95% confidence interval, 1.03 to 8.25). The medians and interquartile ranges measured on the visual analogue scale mirrored this result with of 67% (51%-78.5%) for version A and 57% (29.7%-72.6%) for version B.
Conclusion
Reviewers showed a significant albeit small bias in favour of the orthodox paper and therefore authors of technically good, unconventional papers may be at a disadvantage in the peer review process.
References
Resch KI et al. A randomised controlled study of reviewer bias against an unconventional therapy. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 93(4): 164-7. Apr 2000 .
