Israel Medical Association Journal

Background: The Gaza–Israeli conflict poses challenges for unbiased reporting due to its complexity and media bias. We explored recent scientific publications to understand scholarly discourse and potential biases surrounding this longstanding geopolitical issue.

Objectives: To conduct a descriptive bibliometric analysis of PubMed articles regarding the recent Gaza–Israeli conflict.

Methods: We reviewed 1628 publications using keywords and medical subject headings (MeSH) terms related to Gaza, Hamas, and Israel. We focused on articles written in English. A team of researchers assessed inclusion criteria, resolving disagreements through a third researcher.

Results: Among 37 publications, Lancet, BMJ, and Nature were prominent journals. Authors from 12 countries contributed, with variety of publication types (46% correspondence, 32% news). Pro-Gaza perspectives dominated (43.2%), surpassing pro-Israel (21.6%) and neutral (35.1%) viewpoints. Pro-Gaza articles exhibited higher Altmetric scores, indicating increased social media impact. Pro-Israel publications were predominantly authored by Israelis.

Conclusions: The prevalence of pro-Gaza perspectives underscores challenges in maintaining impartiality. Higher social media impact for pro-Gaza publications emphasizes the need for nuanced examination. Addressing bias is crucial for a comprehensive understanding of this complex conflict and promoting balanced reporting.

Objectives: To determine whether drug studies in the pulmonary/allergy literature also demonstrate a publication bias towards more favorable results when a pharmaceutical company funds the study.

Methods: We reviewed all original articles published in seven pulmonary and allergy journals between October 2002 and September 2003. Included in the review were studies of inhaled corticosteroids (oral or nasal), long- or short-acting bronchodilators, or leukotriene receptor antagonists. Articles with funding from a pharmaceutical company and/or one or more authors employed by a pharmaceutical company were considered pharmaceutical company-sponsored studies. The remaining studies were considered not sponsored by a pharmaceutical company. Results were compared to ascertain whether positive results were obtained more frequently in the company-sponsored studies.

Results: Of the 100 articles included in this review 63 were considered pharmaceutical company-sponsored research. Results favorable for the drugs studies were significantly more common in those funded by a pharmaceutical company (98% vs. 32%).

Conclusions: In the pulmonary and allergy literature, as in other fields, there is a publication bias towards positive results in pharmaceutical company-sponsored research.