Margaret AWinkerMD, Deputy EditorIndividualAuthorPhil B.FontanarosaMD, Interim CoeditorIndividualAuthor
In Reply: Dr Weed is critical of my suggestion
that epidemiologists consider not reporting small relative risks (perhaps
2 or 3) until the observation is replicated in a different environment. The
replication, in addition to showing that the observation can be repeated,
would be more stringently designed, with fully detailed prospectively described
protocols and a single hypothesis. Weed gives 4 reasons for believing that
"mandating replication prior to publication is a bad idea." None seems persuasive.
Temple R. Higher Standards for Epidemiologic Studies—Replication Prior to Publication?—Reply. JAMA. 1999;282(10):937–938. doi:10-1001/pubs.JAMA-ISSN-0098-7484-282-10-jbk0908
Browse and subscribe to JAMA Network podcasts!
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: