A social worker . . . submitted a fictitious article to 140 journals in social work and related disciplines. The article pretended to analyze the value of a "social work intervention" in which an asthmatic child was temporarily separated from its parents in an effort to relieve symptoms . . . In half the articles, the findings supported the effectiveness of a social worker intervening, while in the other half the intervention was judged ineffective . . . Social work journals favored the positive version of the article, which supported the value of social work intervention, and often shunned the negative version . . . "The referees of these journals are not able to apply objectivity or the standards of science," [the researcher] said.