Abstract
This paper contributes to the ongoing debate on the reliability of published research. In particular, this study focuses on the selective reporting of research findings in clinical trials, defined as the publication of only part of the findings originally recorded during a research study, on the basis of the results. Selective reporting can lead to concerns ranging from publishing flawed scientific knowledge, to skewing medical evidence, to wasting time and resources invested in the conduct of research. Drawing upon a unique hand-collected dataset, this study investigates the contextual factors associated with selective reporting. Using ‘risk of bias’ ratings assessed based on expert judgment and presented in systematic reviews of clinical literature, this study explores whether selective reporting is associated with: (1) the source of institutional support; and, (2) the type of innovation evaluated. The results indicate that the odds of selective reporting are higher for industry-funded studies than for publicly-funded studies; however, this effect is restricted to studies where at least one author is industry-affiliated. In addition, the results suggest that selective reporting is more likely in projects exploring radical innovation, compared to those investigating incremental innovation.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 1215-1228 |
Number of pages | 14 |
Journal | Research Policy |
Volume | 47 |
Issue number | 7 |
Early online date | 17 Apr 2018 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - 30 Sept 2018 |
Funding
This work would not have been possible without the outstanding advice provided by Ammon Salter and Paola Criscuolo. Helpful suggestions were provided by Keld Laursen and two anonymous referees. Early versions of this paper were presented during internal workshops at Imperial College Business School, at the DRUID Academy Conference in 2015, at DRUID17 and at the Strategy Entrepreneurship and Innovation (SEI) Doctoral Consortium 2017. I am grateful for comments received at these events. I am also indebted to Corrado Barbui, Teresa Anna Cantisani, Maria Grazia Celani, Andrea Cipriani, Daniele Fanelli, Hans Frankort, Jarno Hoekman, Robert Mathie and Joel West. I gratefully acknowledge the financial support received by the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) [Grant No. EP/K502856/1 ].
Keywords
- Reliability of research
- Reproducibility crisis
- Science policy
- Scientific misconduct
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Strategy and Management
- Management Science and Operations Research
- Management of Technology and Innovation
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Knowledge dissemination in clinical trials: Exploring influences of institutional support and type of innovation on selective reporting'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Profiles
-
Rossella Salandra
- Management - Senior Lecturer (Associate Professor)
- Strategy & Organisation
- Centre for Research in Entrepreneurship and Innovation at Bath
- Centre for Healthcare Innovation and Improvement
- Innovation Bridge
- Centre for 21st Century Public Health
Person: Research & Teaching, Core staff