Feasibility of methods to reduce publication bias_editors
We conducted a survey to help understand the views of journal Editors with regards to different methods of the publication and peer-review process to help reduce publication bias. Editors were asked questions about their views on publication bias and the publication process in general, followed by nine proposals which have been suggested to reduce publication bias. They were asked to choose the proposal they felt to be 'most effective' at reducing publication bias, and were asked to rate each proposal from 1 (not at all effective) to 5 (very effective). Throughout the survey, there was open ended questions (all optional to complete) so that respondents were able to discuss the pros and cons to any of the proposals.
Responses from Editors in the project "The perceived feasibility of methods to reduce publication bias"
Cite this dataset as:
Carroll, H.,
2017.
Feasibility of methods to reduce publication bias_editors.
Bath: University of Bath Research Data Archive.
Available from: https://doi.org/10.15125/BATH-00347.
Export
Data
Raw_data_Editors_clean.xlsx
application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet (54kB)
Creative Commons: Attribution 4.0
Creators
Harriet Carroll
University of Bath
Contributors
University of Bath
Rights Holder
Coverage
Collection date(s):
From 1 September 2015 to 7 December 2015
Temporal coverage:
From 1 September 2015 to 7 December 2015
Geographical coverage:
UK
Documentation
Data collection method:
Bristol Online Surveys was used to gain opinions of journal Editors on the different proposed methods to reduce publication bias during the peer-review and publication process. Editors were chosen via selecting the first 100 articles to come up in a Google Scholar, Jane Biosemantics and PubMed search of 'publication bias'. Additionally, the top 100 journals according to impact factor (assessed via scimagojr.com) were contacted. All searches were conducted in July 2015. Emails to Editors asking them to complete and disseminate the research among their editorial staff were sent, with a subsequent two reminders approximately one month apart if the Editor had not responded.
Data processing and preparation activities:
The ID as used in the manuscript has been included under ‘ID’. One Editor used their name instead of journal. This was replaced by their respective journal. One Editor stated that they did not want to do the survey, they just wanted to see the questions. Their data have been deleted.
Additional information:
This dataset includes responses from Editors contacted in order to gauge opinions on nine different methods that have been proposed to reduce publication bias.
Funders
Economic and Social Research Council
https://doi.org/10.13039/501100000269
South West ESRC Doctoral Training Centre DTG 2011
ES/J50015X/1
Publication details
Publication date: 24 March 2017
by: University of Bath
Version: 1
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15125/BATH-00347
URL for this record: https://researchdata.bath.ac.uk/id/eprint/347
Related papers and books
Carroll, H. A., Toumpakari, Z., Johnson, L., and Betts, J. A., 2017. The perceived feasibility of methods to reduce publication bias. PLOS ONE, 12(10), e0186472. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186472.
Related datasets and code
Carroll, H., 2017. Feasibility of methods to reduce publication bias_academics/researchers. Version 1. Bath: University of Bath Research Data Archive. Available from: https://doi.org/10.15125/BATH-00348.
Contact information
Please contact the Research Data Service in the first instance for all matters concerning this item.
Contact person: Harriet Carroll
Faculty of Humanities & Social Sciences
Health
