Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 7, 2026
Comparing Bibliometric Analysis Using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Databases
Published on: October 24, 2019
Research integrity and transparency in CAM journals: an analysis of publication bias and reporting practices
Stephen Neilson1, Kevin Smith2
1Faculty of Applied Sciences, Department of Built Environment and Life Sciences, Abertay University, Dundee, Scotland, DD1 1HG, UK.
Background:
Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) remains widely used worldwide, yet longstanding concerns persist regarding the balance and reliability of the evidence presented in CAM journals.
Objective:
To examine long-term trends in publication practices within leading CAM journals, with particular attention to changes in publication types and the prevalence of positive versus negative study outcomes as indirect indicators of potential publication bias.
Methods:
We conducted a complete census of articles published in four leading CAM journals at two contemporary time points (2018 and 2023), replicating the design and classification framework of a seminal 2001 analysis covering 1995 and 2000. Articles were categorised by publication type, subject area, and author-reported study outcome (positive, negative, or inconclusive, corresponding to the "open" category used in the original 2001 study). Descriptive analyses were used to compare trends over time and with earlier findings.
Results:
The total number of published articles increased substantially between the earlier and contemporary periods. The proportion of empirical studies, particularly clinical trials, rose over time. However, the prevalence of positive outcomes also increased markedly, with positive findings accounting for over 80% of published articles in the contemporary period, compared with 49% in the earlier study. Negative and inconclusive outcomes remained relatively infrequent.
Conclusions:
Despite growth in publication volume and a shift toward empirical study designs, CAM journals continue to exhibit a pronounced predominance of positive outcome reporting. These findings suggest that longstanding concerns regarding publication bias in CAM publishing have not diminished over time and appear to have intensified, with selective publication and related reporting and dissemination practices plausibly contributing to the observed patterns. This has important implications for research integrity and evidence-based decision-making in medical practice.
Related Concept Videos
01:22Bias
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...
01:29Bias in Epidemiological Studies
01:56Ethics in Research
01:32The Scientific Method
01:23Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast, controlled...
01:15Systematic Error: Methodological and Sampling Errors
Sampling errors originate from improper sampling methods or the wrong sample population. These errors can be minimized by refining the sampling strategy. Defective instruments or faulty calibrations are the sources of instrumental...