The validation of robust evidence.

Tim(othy)

Not sure how you prefer to be addressed.

The words on the page may certainly conceal bias if the author so chooses, but ultimately they are all we have if we are not familiar with the authors and the research project.

Regarding if should I trust the author--I recall reading an anthropology (both ethnographic and archaeologic data) book years ago that tried to make a generalized point across many regions. My area was Mesoamerica, and one chapter dealt with that area I knew best. It was replete with erroneous assumptions and leaps in logic to make the books general point. If I could not trust that chapter, why should I trust any of the others.

In another case, an author of a widely read anthropological book on kinship an marriage, a book that asserted, among other points, that men were, by nature, polygamous, came to speak at my university. Accompanying him was his young female assistant. I do not know if they had a relationship, but I did wonder if he had an unstated bias when he authored the book.

Sometimes I read an article and the introduction or the discussion cites research with which I am familiar, and there may be misinterpretations or misstatements. These make me suspicious of the presentation.

But in general when we read journals we may lack these kinds of clues. But does the article present data in an open, fair, and balanced manner? Does it accurately present the study design or protocol, and the order of a priori hypotheses? If it is manuscript on a secondary endpoint of the study, does it first establish the scientific basis for probing that endpoint? Does the introduction effectively establish the foundations of the argument to be made--the assumptions or premises? Does it's discussion come across as promotional, or does it leave it to the reader to judge the import of the findings?

I would hope the peer review process weeds out most articles that might lack the transparency and integrity you refer to, but we know that is not always the case. Ultimately we rely on our knowledge base and our skills to critically read the article.

It is time we challenged the proponents against “Bias Information” to back down and acknowledge all bias information is not bad. This is a term that is being misused and I for one look towards my selection of medical professionals to have strong biases within their practice of medicine. I just want them to disclose their biases.

Lets look at this term: bias

A term used to describe a tendency or preference towards a particular perspective, ideology or result.

The key is that bias information should be balanced with other or different perspective “Bias” information so there is a balance of information presented within the content of a given subject matter.

I suggest we all want to hear bias information because this information is often the result of training, experience and results. We don’t necessarily want to hear bias information that is based on monetary reward. However, often presentations and/or publications can have multiple biases within any given subject material. The proper way to inform individuals of “bias” information is through disclosure not by elimination. Only by disclosure can the audience determine if the quality of the information has true merit.

Just the fact of monetary interest does not suggest that the bias presentation does not have significant merit in its content, method and conclusions. The fact that there is a disclosure with regard to monetary benefit to the author should be considered and reviewed from that point of reference.

John P. A. Ioannidis has some fascinating statistics on publication bias that is worth reading.

Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. PLoS Med, 2(8), e124.

Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). Contradicted and Initially Stronger Effects in Highly Cited Clinical Research. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 294(2), 218-228. doi: 10.1001/jama.294.2.218

In reflexion about ethical reading, Intentional aspiration should be base on scientific standard rather than personal notion. But, Daydreaming is the nursery of creativity, resposibility growing minds, and austic theoretical philosophical perspective such as Albert E. E=mc2 development. A dillema may be solve if re-thinking indicating re-orienting perspective on technical reading integrating prior scientific journal about philosophy of education. Compromise lag aspect should be further research goals supplicate information. For mature reading experince towards self-development, discovery of nobel journal, emulate scientific information. Second partial authorship, Critical reading could be guide by internal and external studies of research done by the researcher phenomelogical self aspiration confer by realistic data. The value of professional integrity depends on original significant contribution to knowledge as clarify by the scientific community, peers, and honest personal benefit, advanage, and glimpse of hope. The research goal was faithfully task shared. He is tell the truth towards the scientific journal publication, community, and related discipline. Third disclosure, Question side rise "Who will need and want from such a professional publication? Journal publication editor choose value data. Finally conflict of interest decline research participation. Indeed academic freedom could be use as exclusive reason but aspiration gone with the wind, frustration feelings, and ego impose hate. Peaceful unite conflict of interest should be focus on the job never personal politics nor bully personality. Scientific management deals with individual need further studies.