Evidence of Experimental Bias in the Life Sciences: Why We Need Blind Data Recording

Luke Holman, Megan L Head, Robert Lanfear and Michael D Jennions

PLOS Biology, 2015, vol. 13, issue 7, 1-12

Abstract: Observer bias and other “experimenter effects” occur when researchers’ expectations influence study outcome. These biases are strongest when researchers expect a particular result, are measuring subjective variables, and have an incentive to produce data that confirm predictions. To minimize bias, it is good practice to work “blind,” meaning that experimenters are unaware of the identity or treatment group of their subjects while conducting research. Here, using text mining and a literature review, we find evidence that blind protocols are uncommon in the life sciences and that nonblind studies tend to report higher effect sizes and more significant p-values. We discuss methods to minimize bias and urge researchers, editors, and peer reviewers to keep blind protocols in mind.Most experiments should ideally be conducted "blind," to avoid introducing bias. A survey of thousands of studies reveals stronger effect sizes and more significant p-values in nonblind papers, suggesting that blinding should not be neglected.

Date: 2015
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (8)

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002190 (text/html)
https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article/file ... 02190&type=printable (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:plo:pbio00:1002190

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002190

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in PLOS Biology from Public Library of Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by plosbiology ().