A general linear model for estimating effect size in the presence of publication bias

When the process of publication favors studies with smallp-values, and hence large effect estimates, combined estimates from many studies may be biased. This paper describes a model for estimation of effect size when there is selection based on one-tailedp-values. The model employs the method of maximum likelihood in the context of a mixed (fixed and random) effects general linear model for effect sizes. It offers a test for the presence of publication bias, and corrected estimates of the parameters of the linear model for effect magnitude. The model is illustrated using a well-known data set on the benefits of psychotherapy.Authors' note: The contributions of the authors are considered equal, and the order of authorship was chosen to be reverse-alphabetical.     

The Problem of Temporal Order in Stimulation and Perception

A nonrandom socioeconomically homogeneous convenience sample of 150 young adolescent mothers, 260 older adolescent mothers, and 242 older mothers was analyzed according to their standing on key determinants of parenting. The results of a discriminant analysis showed that the young teen mothers differed from the older mothers in terms of knowledge of child development, punitive attitudes toward childrearing, and level of depression. Accuracy of classification was improved with the discriminant function for younger and older mothers, but decreased by 20% for older adolescents.     

Redundant publication in biomedical sciences: Scientific misconduct or necessity?

Redundant publication in biomedical sciences is the presentation of the same information or data set more than once. Forms of redundant publication include “salami slicing”, in which similar text accompanies data presented in disaggregated fashion in different publications and “duplicate or multiple publication” in which identical information is presented with a virtually identical text. Estimates of prevalence of the phenomenon put it at 10 to 25% of published literature. Redundant publication can be considered unethical, or fraudulent, when the author(s) attempt to conceal the existence of duplicate publication from editors and readers. Redundant publication in the area of clinical trials is potentially dangerous as it tends to overestimate the effects of interventions. The scientific community at large and governments should take urgent steps to safeguard the public from the possible effects of fraudulent multiple publications.     

Business Ethics without Philosophers? Evidence for and Implications of the Shift From Applied Philosophers to Business Scholars on the Editorial Boards of Business Ethics Journals

This article considers the relationship between business ethics and philosophy, specifically in relation to the field and persons working in it. The starting point is a grammatical one: business ethics by the rules of grammar belongs to ethics. In terms of academic disciplines, it belongs to applied ethics, which belongs to ethics, which belongs to practical philosophy, which belongs to philosophy. However, in the field of business ethics today one will seldom meet colleagues from philosophy; instead, they will come from business, applying business studies perspectives, approaches, and increasingly quantitative methods. This article provides empirical evidence that today the three top journals with “business ethics” in their titles (and “awarded” a high impact factor) are mostly run (in terms of their editorial boards) by business scholars with PhDs in business. The article compares the three journals today with their inaugural issues and finds that at their inception all three were run by a majority of philosophers. The article discusses six possible explanations for this shift and provides suggestions for how to bring business ethics back to philosophers (and vice versa).     

Contribution Patterns in Major U.S. Marital and Family Therapy Journals: 1992 Through 2002

The institutional sources of articles published between 1992 and 2002 in five major family therapy journals—the American Journal of Family Therapy, Contemporary Family Therapy, Family Process, Journal of Family Psychology, and the Journal of Marital and Family Therapy were reviewed. Noteworthy similarities and differences as compared to earlier reviews were found. While no single institution dominated in numbers of publications, six of the top 10 institutions found between 1980 and 1995 were also found to be within the top 10 most productive institutions between 1992 and 2002. Patterns and changes in contributions from international sources, as well as from institutions with a COAMFTE-accredited program are discussed. Contributions from private practitioners and clinicians are also addressed.     

Clinical Audit and Reform of the UK Research Ethics Review System

There is an international consensus that medical research involving humans should only be undertaken in accordance with ethical principles. Paradoxically though, there is no consensus over the kinds of activities that constitute research and should be subject to review. In the UK and elsewhere, research requiring review is distinguished from clinical audit. Unfortunately the two activities are not always easy to differentiate from one another. Moreover, as the volume of audit increases and becomes more formal in response to the demand for evidence-based practice in medicine, the overlap between research and audit grows more acute. Arguably, similar ethical standards and systems for ensuring that those standards are met should be applied regardless of whether or not a project is classified as research or audit. At a time when the research ethics review system in the UK is undergoing significant reform it is important that the opportunity is not missed to address the longstanding research-audit problem. We discuss suggestions for further reform that addresses this issue.