Negative Results and Impact Factor

• DOI: 10.1001/archpedi.159.11.1036
• Publication Date: 2005-11-07T21:23:19Z
• Authors: Yoav Littner; Francis B. Mimouni; Shaul Dollberg; Dror Mandel
• Keywords: Infant, Newborn; 3. Good health; 03 medical and health sciences; Treatment Outcome; 0302 clinical medicine; Bibliometrics; Humans; Neonatology; Periodicals as Topic; 10. No inequality; Publication Bias; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Retrospective Studies

To test the hypothesis that articles with negative results are more likely than articles with positive results to be published in journals with lower impact factor.We selected all of the randomized, placebo-controlled trials conducted during the neonatal period between October 1, 1998, and October 1, 2003. Trials were classified as having positive results or negative results (significant or no significant difference, respectively). Only studies dealing with primary outcomes (efficacy) were included.The impact factor of each journal was determined, and the sample size for each study was noted.There were 233 articles that fulfilled the inclusion criteria. There was a significant difference between the 2 groups in terms of impact factor (P = .03) but not sample size (P = .30). Impact factor correlated with both sample size and the type of study results (positive results vs negative results; P<.05).Articles with negative results are more likely than articles with positive results to be published in journals with lower impact factor.