Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Types of Selection01:46

Types of Selection

Natural selection influences the frequencies of particular alleles and phenotypes within populations in several different ways. Primarily, natural selection can be directional, stabilizing, or disruptive. Directional selection favors one extreme trait and shifts the population towards that phenotype while selecting against individuals displaying alternate traits. Stabilizing selection favors an intermediate trait with a narrow range of variation. Deviation from the optimal phenotype towards an...
Reason and Intuition01:37

Reason and Intuition

The human brain processes information for decision-making using one of two routes: an intuitive system and a rational system (Epstein, 1994; popularized by Kahneman, 2011 as System 1 and System 2, respectively). The intuitive system is quick, impulsive, and operates with minimal effort, relying on emotions or habits to provide cues for what to do next, while the rational system is logical, analytical, deliberate, and methodical. Research in neuropsychology suggests that the brain can only use...
Groupthink01:34

Groupthink

When in group settings, we are often influenced by the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors around us. Groupthink is another phenomenon of conformity where modification of the opinions of members in a group aligns with what they believe is the group consensus (Janis, 1972). In such situations, the group often takes action that individuals would not perform outside the group setting because groups make more extreme decisions than individuals do. Moreover, groupthink can hinder opposing trains of...
Decision Making: P-value Method01:09

Decision Making: P-value Method

The process of hypothesis testing based on the P-value method includes calculating the P- value using the sample data and interpreting it.
First, a specific claim about the population parameter is proposed. The claim is based on the research question and is stated in a simple form. Further, an opposing statement to the claim  is also stated. These statements can act as null and alternative hypotheses:  a null hypothesis would be a neutral statement while the alternative hypothesis can have a...
Decision Making: Traditional Method01:14

Decision Making: Traditional Method

The process of hypothesis testing based on the traditional method includes calculating the critical value, testing the value of the test statistic using the sample data, and interpreting these values.
First, a specific claim about the population parameter is decided based on the research question and is stated in a simple form. Further, an opposing statement to this claim is also stated. These statements can act as null and alternative hypotheses, out of which a null hypothesis would be a...
Bias01:22

Bias

Bias refers to any tendency that prevents a question from being considered unprejudiced. In research, bias occurs when one outcome or answer is selected or encouraged over others in sampling or testing. Bias can occur during any research phase, including study design, data collection, analysis, and publication.
In statistics, a sampling bias is created when a sample is collected from a population, and some members of the population are not as likely to be chosen as others (remember, each member...

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Author AI Disclosure in JAMA Network Journal Submissions-Reply.

JAMA·2026
Same author

Pantoprazole Use in Invasively Ventilated Patients With Septic Shock: A Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan.

Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica·2026
Same author

Correction: How would Marie Kondo design a protocol? In favor of subtractive change in clinical trials.

Frontiers in medicine·2026
Same author

2025 Year in Review and Vision for the Path Ahead.

JAMA·2026
Same author

How would Marie Kondo design a protocol? In favor of subtractive change in clinical trials.

Frontiers in medicine·2026
Same author

Considerations for environmental sustainability in clinical trials: A case study simulation of the REVISE trial.

Journal of critical care·2026

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jul 8, 2026

Errors as a Means of Reducing Impulsive Food Choice
07:07

Errors as a Means of Reducing Impulsive Food Choice

Published on: June 5, 2016

Publication bias in editorial decision making.

Carin M Olson1, Drummond Rennie, Deborah Cook

  • 1JAMA, Chicago, IL, USA. colson@u.washington.edu

JAMA
|June 1, 2002
PubMed
Summary

This study found no significant difference in publication rates for submitted manuscripts reporting positive versus negative results. Publication bias may not be as prevalent after manuscript submission as previously thought.

Keywords:
Biomedical and Behavioral ResearchEmpirical Approach

More Related Videos

Comparing the Frequency Effect Between the Lexical Decision and Naming Tasks in Chinese
08:08

Comparing the Frequency Effect Between the Lexical Decision and Naming Tasks in Chinese

Published on: April 1, 2016

New Variations for Strategy Set-shifting in the Rat
09:45

New Variations for Strategy Set-shifting in the Rat

Published on: January 23, 2017

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jul 8, 2026

Errors as a Means of Reducing Impulsive Food Choice
07:07

Errors as a Means of Reducing Impulsive Food Choice

Published on: June 5, 2016

Comparing the Frequency Effect Between the Lexical Decision and Naming Tasks in Chinese
08:08

Comparing the Frequency Effect Between the Lexical Decision and Naming Tasks in Chinese

Published on: April 1, 2016

New Variations for Strategy Set-shifting in the Rat
09:45

New Variations for Strategy Set-shifting in the Rat

Published on: January 23, 2017

Area of Science:

  • Medical research integrity
  • Scholarly publishing
  • Biostatistics

Background:

  • Publication bias, where positive results are favored over negative ones, is a known issue in scientific literature.
  • Authors may be less inclined to submit manuscripts with negative findings, contributing to this bias.
  • This study investigates whether publication bias exists after manuscripts are submitted to journals.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To determine if submitted manuscripts reporting positive results from controlled trials have a higher likelihood of publication compared to those reporting negative results.
  • To assess publication bias in the context of submitted manuscripts.

Main Methods:

  • A prospective cohort study analyzed 745 manuscripts submitted to JAMA between February 1996 and August 1999.
  • Manuscripts were categorized based on reported results: positive (P<.05 for primary outcome), negative, or unclear.
  • Study characteristics and quality indicators were evaluated to adjust for potential confounding factors.

Main Results:

  • Of 745 submitted manuscripts, 133 (17.9%) were published.
  • Publication rates were 20.4% for positive results, 15.0% for negative results, and 19.0% for unclear results.
  • After adjusting for study characteristics and quality, the odds ratio for publishing positive results versus negative results was 1.30 (95% CI, 0.87-1.96), which was not statistically significant.

Conclusions:

  • The study did not find statistically significant evidence of publication bias among submitted manuscripts.
  • Submitted manuscripts reporting positive results were not published at a significantly higher rate than those reporting negative results.
  • This suggests that publication bias may not be a significant factor once manuscripts enter the journal submission process.