Research article
.
A systematic review of how homeopathy is represented in conventional and CAM peer reviewed journals
Timothy Caulfield and Suzanne DeBow
Health Law Institute, University of Alberta, Canada

BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine 2005, 5:12 doi:10.1186/1472-6882-5-12


A considerable difference exists between the number of clinical trials showing positive results published in CAM journals compared with traditional journals. We found only 30% of those articles published in CAM journals presented negative findings, whereas over twice that amount were published in traditional journals. These results suggest a publication bias against homeopathy exists in mainstream journals. Conversely, the same type of publication bias does not appear to exist between review and meta-analysis articles published in the two types of journals.

I remember reading (or being told) about this some time ago.
It's not surprising really, is it? When you consider.....

__________________
"The significance of a fact is measured by the capacity of the observer."
Carroll Dunham

only god is unprejudiced?