Journals give more publicity to ‘weak science’ [View all]

[HuckleB]

Analysis of seven prominent medical journals finds randomised controlled trials are far less likely to receive a press release than weaker observational studies
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/cn/news/journals-give-more-publicity-weak-science

"cientists often bemoan journalists’ shoddy reporting of research findings. The writer and physician Ben Goldacre has even made a career dissecting shaky scientific claims that appear in British newspapers.

But a new study suggests that scientifically illiterate hacks in desperate need of a story might be only partly to blame. It found that journals themselves are more likely to issue press releases publicising the findings of what may be deemed weaker studies than larger, more scientifically significant trials.

Looking at seven of the world’s most prestigious medical journals, researchers found that half of published observational studies were the subject of a press release, compared with just 17 per cent of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), despite the latter being seen as the only way to reliably test a hypothesis.

There was a similar pattern when looking at the most reliable type of research: RCTs with large numbers of participants. These were given a press release just 14 per cent of the time, compared with 38 per cent of those with smaller samples and observational trials.

..."