{"id":2881,"date":"2019-06-11T04:22:10","date_gmt":"2019-06-11T04:22:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/journal-conducts-reproducibility-trial-publishes-one-paper-with-two-conclusions\/"},"modified":"2025-01-15T06:33:09","modified_gmt":"2025-01-15T06:33:09","slug":"journal-conducts-reproducibility-trial-publishes-one-paper-with-two-conclusions","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/journal-conducts-reproducibility-trial-publishes-one-paper-with-two-conclusions","title":{"rendered":"Journal conducts reproducibility trial, publishes one paper with two conclusions"},"content":{"rendered":"

The British Journal of Anaesthesia<\/i> published a research with two conclusions as part of an extraordinary peer review trial with a view to broaden the scope of reproducibility of results. The journal published a paper that concluded the lack of a link between the depth of sedation during surgery and early death\u00a0among the elderly. Interestingly, the journal published another paper based on the same research but with a different conclusion. According to the second paper, the number of patients included in the trial was not sufficient to reach any conclusion regarding the mortality rates\u00a0among the elderly.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Hugh Hemmings, Editor-in-Chief of the British Journal of Anaesthesia<\/i> and a neuropharmacologist at Weill Cornell Medical College, New York City, said that the unusual peer review is an effort to tackle \u201cover-interpretation, spin and subjective bias<\/a>\u201d that is prevalent in the discussion sections of research papers.\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Under the rare peer review process, the journal now invites an independent expert to write the discussion section for some papers. The expert is able to access only the methods and results sections of the study, and not the conclusions.\u00a0Based on their personal judgment, the expert is expected to write a discussion for the study, thereby extending\u00a0the reproducibility aspect of a study\u00a0beyond the methods section. The journal then publishes the two discussion sections at the same time outlining the differences and similarities.\u00a0 <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Welcoming the new approach, the lead author of the original paper, Frederick Sieber, a researcher in anaesthesiology and critical-care medicine at Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center, Baltimore said: \u201cWe\u2019re all biased and this gives a second pair of eyes<\/a>.\u201d Sieber added\u00a0that the original study is still valid as it aimed\u00a0to measure the impact of the anaesthesia dosage not on death, but rather on delirium. The independent discussion also agrees with the original research\u2019s conclusion regarding this, he pointed out.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

While applauding the journal\u2019s novel attempt, John Ioannidis, researcher at\u00a0Stanford University in Palo Alto, California and one of the authors of the independent discussion emphasized the need to extend reproducibility to the inferences and conclusions of research papers. Ioannidis, who is an advocate for improving reproducibility, said that, \u201cOut of very similar results with very similar methods people can make inferences or create narratives or tell stories that are very different<\/a>.\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Departing from this view, Robert Sneyd, dean of the Plymouth University Peninsula Schools of Medicine and Dentistry, UK, noted that this process of writing independent discussions is likely to be\u00a0assigned to the same pool of people who act as peer reviewers. Instead, he suggested that the existing rules and guidelines for authors be followed more strictly such as\u00a0stating a study\u2019s limitations with clarity. <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

According to Hemmings, the journal has in the pipeline another independent discussion of another paper, and that he will continue with this practice only if it is useful and received well by the academic community.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Related reading: <\/b><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n