References
- Horton R. Genetically modified food: consternation, confusion, and crack-up. Med J Aust 2000;172:148-9
- Easterbrook PJ, Berlin JA, Gopalan R, et al. Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet 1991;337:867-72
- Kuhn T. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962
- Chalmers TC, Frank CS, Reitman D. Minimizing the three stages of publication bias. JAMA 1990;263:1392-5
- Barber B. Resistance by scientists to scientific discovery. Science 1961;134:596-602
- Campanario JM. Rejecting and resisting Nobel class discoveries: accounts by Nobel Laureates. Scientometrics 2009;81:549-65
- Coping with peer rejection. Nature 2003;425:645
- Koyré A. The Astronomical Revolution: Copernicus – Kepler – Borelli. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1973
- Thompson SP. The Life of Sir William Thomson Baron Kelvin of Largs. Vol. 2: 1125. London: Macmillan, 1910
- Rojas-Burke J. Doctor and invention outlast jeers and threats. The Sunday Oregonian. December 31, 2006
- Osmond DH. Malice’s wonderland: research funding and peer review. J Neurobiol 1983;14:95-112
- Mahoney MJ. Publication prejudices: an experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system. Cognitive Therapy and Research 1977;1:161-75
- Goldsmith LA, Blalock EN, Bobkova H, et al. Picking your peers. J Invest Dermatol 2006;126:1429-30
- Wager E, Fiack S, Graf C, et al. Science journal editors’ views on publication ethics: results of an international survey. J Med Ethics 2009;35:348-53
- Tamber PS. The trouble with medical journals by Richard Smith: an alternative view. BMJ 2006;332:1444-7
- Hardgreaves S. Industry funded trials often have ghost authorship. BMJ 2007;334:223
- Bacon F. Novum Organum. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967
- Lord C, Ross L, Lepper MR. Biased assimilation and attitude polarisation: the effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. J Pers Soc Psychol 1979;37:2098-2109
- PLoS Medicine Editors. Making sense of non-financial competing interests. PLoS Med 2008;5(9):e199
- Luborsky L, Diguer L, Seligman DA, et al. The researcher’s own therapy allegiance: A ‘wild card’ in comparisons of treatment efficacy. Clin Psychol Sci Prac 1999;6:95-106
- Kiesler C, Mathog P, Pool P, et al. Commitment and boomerang effect: a field stuffy, in Kiesler C The Psychology of Commitment. New York: Academic Press, 1971
- Newcomb TM. Personality and Social Change. New York: Dryden Press, 1943
- Sutherland S. Irrationality. London: Pinter & Martin Ltd, 2007
- Borowski SC, Welsh MJ. Ethical practice in the accounting publishing process: contrasting opinions of authors and editors. J Bus Ethics 2000;25:15-31
- Geggie D. A survey of newly appointed consultants’ attitudes towards research fraud. J Med Ethics 2001;27:344-6
- Luty J, Arokiadass SM, Easow JM, et al. Preferential publication of editorial board members in medical specialty journals. J Med Ethics 2009;35:200-2
- Cain DM, Detsky AS. Everyone’s a little biased (even physicians). JAMA 2008;299:2893-5
- Pulverer B. Transparency showcases strength of peer review. Nature 2010;468:29-31
- Rumsey TS. One editor’s views on conflict of interest. J Anim Sci 1999;77:2379-83