Academic reviewers are three times more likely to rate articles on conventional medicine as important than otherwise identical articles on alternative therapies.
A study in the April issue of the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine by Professor Edzard Ernst (department of complementary medicine, Exeter university) and two colleagues warns that technically good unconventional papers might be at a disadvantage in the peer review process.
They report that two papers on obesity treatments were sent from the editorial board of the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition to nearly 400 specialists. The papers were identical except that in one the treatment being researched was named as hydroxy-citrate, an orthodox medicine, while in the other it was named as a homoeopathic sulphur remedy.
The reviewers were found to be more likely to recommend publication of the hydroxycitrate paper and significantly more likely to rate that study as important. However, when the reviewers were asked to rate specific aspects of the study, such as method, reliability, and references, the bias did not show up. It only appeared in their overall rating of importance.
The authors conclude that a lack of open mindedness in the peer review process could affect the introduction of unconventional concepts into medicine. They call for more investigation into the way medical journals choose what to publish.