Spin has been defined as a specific intentional or unintentional reporting that fails to faithfully reflect the nature and range of findings and that could affect the impression the results produce in readers.
A article, based on a literature review, reports the various practices of spin from misreporting by “beautification” of methods to misreporting by misinterpreting the results. It provides data on the prevalence of some forms of spin in specific fields and the possible effects of some types of spin on readers' interpretation and research dissemination. They also discuss why researchers would spin their reports and possible ways to avoid it 1).
Spin has become a standard concept in public relations and politics in recent decades. It is “a form of propaganda, achieved by providing a biased interpretation of an event or campaigning to persuade public opinion in favor of or against some organization or public figure” 2).
“Spin doctors” modify the perception of an event to reduce any negative impact or to increase any positive impact it might have on public opinion. For this purpose, spin doctors could attempt to bury potentially negative information or selectively “cherry-pick” specific information or quotes.
The concept of spin can also be applied to scientific communications. Spin can also be defined as a specific reporting that fails to faithfully reflect the nature and range of findings and that could affect the impression that the results produce in readers, a way to distort science reporting without actually lying.
This highly competitive “publish or perish” environment may favor detrimental research practices; thus, spinning the study results and a “spun” interpretation could be an easy way to confer a more positive result and increase the interest of reviewers and editors. A study of more than 4,600 articles published in all disciplines between 1990 and 2007 showed an increase in statistically significant results by more than 22%, with 86% of articles reporting a statistically significant result 3).