Researchers face pressure to publish exciting findings that will garner media attention, but must take care not to exaggerate or distort their results. While promotion of their work is necessary, researchers should use appropriate causal language, recognize limitations of their studies, and remain transparent in reporting associations and rationale. Responsible reporting practices help ensure research accurately informs public health policies and recommendations.

1. Responsibly turning
epidemiological findings into
public health recommendations
19th Research Postgraduate Symposium
University of Hong Kong Li Ka Shing
School of Medicine
10 December 2014
James C. Coyne, Ph.D.
Department of Health Psychology
University of Groningen, University Medical
Center Groningen (UMCG), Groningen, the
Netherlands
jcoynester@gmail.com

2. Academics are under enormous
pressure to publish in the
highest impact journals
possible.

3. Yet, doing excellent science is
not enough to ensure that
manuscripts are even sent out
for review.

4. Editors of high impact journals
seek papers that will be
newsworthy and garner media
attention. Why?

5.  Journal impact factor (JIF) is calculated from
the number of citations in the first two years
after publication.
 Immediate media attention is a well-established
means of getting early citations.
 High impact journals require authors play to
the media.

6. The real work begins after publication.
Use social media, listserves, and email
to those who might act on your
research.
--Richard Smith, Former Editor of BMJ, author of What's
Wrong With Medical Journals]

7. Journalists/Media
Do not work for medical and scientific
researchers.
Interested in stories that will attract attention.
Not primarily concerned with transmission of
accurate information or effects on public health
and well-being.

8. Pressures on Journalists
“I’m in competition with literally hundreds of
stories every day, political and economic
stories of compelling interest…we have to
almost overstate, we have to come as close as
we came within the boundaries of truth to
dramatic, compelling statement. A weak
statement will go no place.”
—-Journalist interviewed for JA Winsten, Science and
media: the boundaries of truth.

9. Newspapers were more likely to cover
observational studies and less likely to cover
RCTs than high impact journals. Additionally,
when the media does cover observational
studies, they select articles of inferior quality.
Newspapers preferentially cover medical
research with weaker methodology.

11. Results of bad practices
Medical and public health effects include
Overdiagnosis.
Overtreatment.
Overreaction to emerging health issues.
Neglect of less dramatic measures that would
more reliably improve medical and public
health outcomes.

12. “It can be proven that most claimed
research findings are false”
Ioannidis, JPA. (2005). Why most published
research findings are false. PLOS Medicine 2:
696-701.
Ioannidis, JPA. (2005). Contradicted and
initially stronger effects in highly cited clinical
research. JAMA 294: 218-228.
Young, NS., Ioannidis, JPA. et al. (2008). Why
Current Publication Practices May Distort
Science. PLOS Medicine 5: 1418-1422.

13. I wear two hats
 Teaching, coaching
Groningen faculty to
get their papers into
high impact journals
and grants funded.
 Challenging
exaggerated findings
in the literature.

14. Of necessity, researchers must self-promote
and market their manuscripts and grants to
international journals and granting agencies.
Must craft messages emphasizing their work’s
innovation and significance.
Goes against Dutch culture’s encouragement of
modesty and not standing out.

15. Resist the temptation to
hype and spin.
Recognize and resist pressures from
institutions and journals to exaggerate
importance of your findings.
Journalists are important allies, but are much
more interested in getting attention for
themselves than in accurately portraying your
work.

16. Hype (defined)
“To publicize or promote,
especially by extravagant,
inflated, misleading, and
deceitful claims.”

18. A story with a good outcome
Correcting the American
response to Ebola

19. Controlling Ebola in the US requires
Thorough isolation of symptomatic victims.
Rigorous attention to personal protective equipment.
Protocols for health care workers.
Containing Ebola in Africa requires international healthcare
workers
Providing treatment, organizing treatment centers, safe
burials, and community mobilization.
Returning to their own countries, whether infected or not.

20. Overreaction

21. Corrective Actions
 Avoided sensationalism.
 Recognized fear a greater threat to public health
and well-being than Ebola itself.
 Placed actual small number of deaths and low
risk in US in perspective.
 Constant, honest, humble risk communication.
 Avoided being overconfident, accepted
inevitability of at least a small number of deaths.

22. A story not yet with a good
outcome
BMJ article spins
epidemiological to fit direction of
government policy to reduce
obesity.

23. “Exposure to takeaway food outlets…was
associated with marginally higher consumption of
takeaway food, greater body mass index, and
greater odds of obesity.
“Government strategies to promote healthier diets
through planning restrictions for takeaway food
could be most effective if focused around the
workplace.”

25. Hype and nontransparency
 Abstract exaggerated findings that were
presented in results.
 Results did not show ‘fast food outlets’ more
associated with obesity than other factors.
 Author did not provide table of basic
associations.
 Poor and selective control of confounds.
 Discussion ignored other studies showing
restricting fast food outlets decreases
obesity.

26. Later authors of BMJ article had described how
they could create illusory ‘obesogenic* realities’
with arbitrary methodological and statistical
decisions and selective reporting.
*appearance that particular environmental
factors cause obesity.

27. What was ignored
Increasing bike paths, parks for exercise as a
an alternative.
Fast food outlets are in areas where residents
cannot easily shop, store or prepare own meals
or have time to do so.
Fast food outlets may be only source of
vegetables in food deserts.

28. Need to ask….
Would paper have been accepted
by BMJ if the findings had not been
distorted or if basic statistics had
been available to reviewers?

29. What you can do
Become informed about reporting standards
and standards for talking to media.
Educate your trainees and readers.
Take part in post-publication review and
challenge bad reporting practices.
Get involved in PubMed Commons.

30. PubMed Commons is a system that enables
researchers to share their opinions about
scientific publications.
Researchers can comment on any
publication indexed by PubMed, and read
the comments of others.

31. Join the Pubmed Commons
Revolution
No longer will a few people grant an
irrevocable judgment of “must stand
because it is peer reviewed.”
You can take post-publication peer
review out of the hands of editors.

32. One of many free resources
http://tinyurl.com/pquj95k

33. http://www.testingtreatments.org/tt-main-text/the-book/download-the-book/

34. Summary
Researchers must
Emphasize significance and relevance of their
work to biomedical and public health problems to
get published.
Promote their work in press releases and social
media.
Face pressures to exaggerate and distort their
findings.

35. Summary (continued)
But researchers should practice responsible
reporting.
Choose appropriate language (association, not
causality).
Recognize arbitrariness and limits of statistical
controls to establish causality.
Be transparent in reporting basic associations
and rationale for multivariate analyses.
Honestly, humbly remind audience of the limits of
their findings.

36. Thank you
Follow me on Twitter
@CoyneoftheRealm
Blogging at PLOS Mind the Brain