In a paper published in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, Adamson et al. (2020) interpret data as showing that cognitive behavioural therapy leads to improvement in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome and chronic fatigue. Their research is undermined by several methodological limitations, including: (a) sampling ambiguity; (b) weak measurement; (c) survivor bias; (d) missing data and (e) lack of a control group. Unacknowledged sample attrition renders statements in the published Abstract misleading with regard to points of fact. That the paper was approved by peer reviewers and editors illustrates how non-rigorous editorial processes contribute to systematic publication bias.

在《皇家医学会杂志》上发表的一篇论文中，亚当森等人。（2020 年）将数据解释为表明认知行为疗法可改善慢性疲劳综合征和慢性疲劳患者。他们的研究受到一些方法学限制的破坏，包括：(a) 抽样模糊；(b) 弱测量；(c) 幸存者偏见；(d) 缺失数据和 (e) 缺乏对照组。未承认的样本损耗会使已发表的摘要中的陈述在事实方面具有误导性。这篇论文得到了同行评审和编辑的批准，这说明了不严谨的编辑过程是如何导致系统性发表偏见的。