O D IS C

180), C. B. Fisher equates negative trial results with poorly conducted trials. There is no evi-dence that this is the case. Rather, the existence of a bias toward the publication of positive out-comes is not only well known (1), but docu-mented examples underscore its effects: Inclusion of unpublished data can sometimes shift assessment of a treatment’s value from one of overall benefit toward overall harm (2). The new Public Library of Science journal PLoS Clinical Trials will address this problem by publishing reports irrespective of a trial’s outcome. Fisher suggests that this approach “risks diluting scientific standards for peer review. ” This statement is not correct; in fact, the journal will ensure the highest standard of reporting by adhering to CONSORT (3), by requiring that all trials be registered, and by obtaining a copy of the original trial protocol, which will enable reviewers to compare the final report against what was planned. All trials will be scrutinized by at least one subject-specific reviewer as well as a statistical expert, together with academic editors and in-house editorial staff. In this way, the journal will uphold and advance scientific standards for publication of trial results