TY  - JOUR
T1  - OUtcome-blinded peer review—reply
AU  - Emerson GB, Warme WJ, Wolf FM, Heckman JD, Brand RA, Leopold SS
Y1  - 2011/07/11
N1  - 10.1001/archinternmed.2011.290
JO  - Archives of Internal Medicine
SP  - 1213
EP  - 1214
VL  - 171
IS  - 13
N2  - 
It is not clear to us that raising awareness of a natural human tendency (to be drawn to a finding over an absence of one), or that reminding reviewers and editors that articles should be judged on methodological rigor rather than by the direction of the outcomes, will result in any sort of counteracting bias. Similarly, finding the means to publish high-quality, no-difference or “negative” studies, whether in print, in electronic editions, or in searchable online appendixes, seems to offer little downside, while providing a mechanism for no-difference studies to be identified by meta-analyses, decision analyses, and other forms of synthetic research.

SN  - 0003-9926
M3  - doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2011.290
UR  - http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2011.290
ER  -