BACKGROUND: PUBLICATION BIAS is an important factor that may result in selection BIAS and lead to overestimation of the intervention effect. In this study, the focus was on using capture-recapture method as a statistical procedure which may possibly be a practical means for measuring the amount of PUBLICATION BIAS.METHODS: A systematic review was conducted to estimate the duration of protection provided by hepatitis B vaccine by measuring the anamnestic immune response to booster doses of vaccine and retrieved studies from three separate sources of electronic databases, reference lists of the studies, and conference databases as well as contact with experts and manufacturers. Capture-recapture and some conventional methods such as funnel plot, Begg test, Egger test, and trim and fill method were employed for assessing PUBLICATION BIAS.RESULTS: Based on capture-recapture method, completeness of the overall search results was 87.2% [95% CI: 84.6% to 89.0%] and log-linear model suggested 5 [95% CI: 4.2 to 6.2] missing studies. The funnel plot was asymmetric while Begg and Egger tests results were statistically insignificant and trill and fill approach made no change in pooled effect. CONCLUSIONS: Capture-recapture method may be a useful practical approach for estimating the number of missing studies which are not usually detected by search strategy. As a result, use of capture-recapture method as an alternative approach could be suggested for estimating the extent of PUBLICATION BIAS based on overlapping information rather than mirror image of extreme values on funnel plot.

The editorial materials in top medical and public health journals are opportunities for experts to offer thoughts that might influence the trajectory of the field. To date, while some studies have examined gender BIAS in the PUBLICATION of editorial materials in medical journals, none have studied public health journals. In this perspective, we studied the gender ratio of the editorial materials published in the top health and medical sciences journals between 2008 and early 2018 to test whether gender BIAS exists. We studied a total of 59 top journals in health and medical sciences. Overall, while there is a trend of increasing proportion of female first authors, there is still a greater proportion of male than female first authors. The average male-to-female first author ratio during the study period across all journals was 2. 08. Ensuring equal access and exposure through journal editorials is a critical step, albeit only one step of a longer journey, towards gender balance in health and medical sciences research. Editors of top journals have a key role to play in pushing the fields towards more balanced gender equality, and we strongly urge editors to rethink the strategies for inviting authors for editorial materials.

PUBLICATION of articles in biomedical journals disseminates the results of scientific research, which ultimately advances knowledge and improves public health. PUBLICATION also benefits the authors and the pharmaceutical companies who sponsor research. The benefit to authors is in career promotion and securing funding. The benefit to pharmaceutical companies is influencing doctors to prescribe their products. It follows that the greater the number of PUBLICATIONs the greater will be the benefit to authors and sponsors. This scenario drives temptation to publish data from the same research study more than once. Consequently rePUBLICATION of entire articles or information contained in articles is not uncommon. The problem is such PUBLICATION can be unethical and against the public interest, as it was in the second study described below. It also wastes the time of editors and reviewers in processing the papers as well as readers’ time in reading what they have read before.