Abstract
Non-publication and publication bias are topics of considerable importance to the scientific community. These issues may limit progress toward the 3R principle for animal research, promote waste of public resources, and generate biased interpretations of clinical outcomes. To investigate current publishing practices and to gain some understanding of the extent to which research results are reported, we examined publication rates of research projects that were approved within an internal funding program of the Faculty of Medicine at a university medical center in Germany, which is exemplary for comparable research funding programs for the promotion of young researchers in Germany and Europe. We analyzed the complete set (n = 363) of research projects that were supported by an internal funding program between 2004 and 2013. We divided the projects into four different proposal types that included those that required an ethics vote, those that included an animal proposal, those that included both requirements, and those that included neither requirement. We found that 65% of the internally funded research projects resulted in at least one peer-reviewed publication; this increased to 73% if other research contributions were considered, including abstracts, book and congress contributions, scientific posters, and presentations. There were no significant differences with respect to publication rates based on (a) the clinic/institute of the applicant, (b) project duration, (c) scope of funding or (d) proposal type. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to explore publication rates associated with early-career medical research funding. As >70% of the projects ultimately generated some form of publication, the program was overall effective toward this goal; however, non-publication of research results is still prevalent. Further research will explore the reasons underlying non-publication. We hope to use these findings to develop strategies that encourage publication of research results.
Highlights
Non-publication and publication bias with respect to results dissemination are topics of substantial concern in the scientific community [1]
We found that 65% of the internally funded research projects resulted in at least one peerreviewed publication; this increased to 73% if other research contributions were considered, including abstracts, book and congress contributions, scientific posters, and presentations
The present study provides information on the true extent of publication rates of research projects of an internal research funding program that is exemplary for comparable funding programs in Germany and Europe, and gives an impression of the dissemination of research results and the visibility and sustainability of internal research funding [15]
Summary
Non-publication and publication bias with respect to results dissemination are topics of substantial concern in the scientific community [1]. A recently published study revealed that only ~7% of the results from all clinical trials that are carried out at university medical centers (UMCs) in Germany are published in the European Union clinical trials registry [4]. This percentage does not reflect the extent to which clinical trials are published in the scientific literature, this fact remains disconcerting and a topic of substantial concern. Underreporting of clinical trials has substantial negative consequences that include the potential for direct harm to patients, delayed medical progress and waste of public funds. We do not have sufficient information on publication rates associated with early-stage projects; these projects by nature have a comparatively high potential for failure and as such results may not be reported or published
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
