Misrepresentation and distortion of research in biomedical literature, Boutron and Ravaud, 2018

[Indigophoton]

Publication in peer-reviewed journals is an essential step in the scientific process. It generates knowledge, influences future experiments, and may impact clinical practice and public health. Ethically, research results must be reported completely, transparently, and accurately (1, 2). However, publication is not simply the reporting of facts arising from a straightforward and objective analysis of those facts (3). When writing a manuscript reporting the results of an experiment, investigators usually have broad latitude in the choice, representation, and interpretation of the data. They may be tempted consciously or unconsciously to shape the impression that the results will have on readers and consequently “spin” their study results.

In this article, we will explain the concept of spin, explore why and how investigators distort the results of their studies, and describe the impact of spin in reports and possible ways to avoid generating it. This article reflects our knowledge and opinion on this topic and is informed by a literature review. Furthermore, the scope of this study is limited to the occurrence of this phenomenon exclusively within the field of biomedicine.

There's a neat summary of some of the issues,

I haven't read the paper properly yet, but noticed this comment in particular,

In theory, peer-reviewers and editors should determine whether the conclusions match the results. However, a systematic assessment of peer-reviewers’ reports showed that even when they identify some spin in reports, only two-thirds of the spin is completely deleted by the authors. Furthermore, some peer-reviewers are actually requesting the addition of spin, and one study found that they failed to even identify spin in the abstract’s conclusion in 76% of the reports (78).

(emphasis added).

http://www.pnas.org/content/115/11/2613

 

[Philipp]

It would be interesting to see if the part about "requesting the addition of spin" is more common with psychology-associated research. I vaguely remember something about reviewers not wanting to add comments about how subjective outcome measures in unblinded trials are problematic...