Results Blind Science Publishing

Abstract

Problems in science publishing involving publication bias, null hypothesis significance testing (NHST), and irreproducibility of reported results have been widely cited. Numerous attempts to ameliorate these problems have included statistical methods to assess and correct for publication bias, and recommendation or development of statistical methodologies to replace NHST where some journals have even instituted a policy of banning manuscripts reporting use of NHST. In an effort to mitigate these problems, a policy of “results blind evaluation” of manuscripts submitted to journals is recommended, in which results reported in manuscripts are given no weight in the decision as to the suitability of the manuscript for publication. Weight would be given exclusively to (a) the judged importance of the research question addressed in the study, typically conveyed in the Introduction section of the manuscript, and (b) the quality of the methodology of the study, including appropriateness of data analysis methods, as reported in the Methods section. As a practical method of implementing such a policy, a two-stage process is suggested whereby the editor initially distributes only the Introduction and Methods sections of a submitted manuscript to reviewers for evaluation and a provisional decision regarding acceptance or rejection for publication is made. A second stage of review follows in which the complete manuscript is distributed for review but only if the decision of the first stage is for acceptance with no more than minor revision.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 45 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.