Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

First of all, the author of this piece works in Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology. Research is done differently across different disciplines, so it's dangerous to try to expand this to other disciplines. For example, some fields find alpha But research is very weird indeed. The more conference/journal articles you read, the less you trust them. I mean, say a field accepts results alpha Feel free to correct me if you have a better grasp of statistics find what I say to be wrong.

Re: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

#5

Post by ramanujan » Sun, Oct 24, 2010, 3:11 AM UTC

This paper has gotten way too much press for an oversimplified model of science. Here's the thing: if results hold up to scrutiny, the authors are eager to share code and plasmids/samples. If not, they are a lot more squirrelly. Outside replication is what keeps the machine moving forward, is fairly readily proxied by citation rates, and yet is not captured by Ioannidis' simple model.

Re: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

#6

Post by jonhendry » Sun, Oct 24, 2010, 3:12 AM UTC

Well, that's why the whole "replication" thing is important. One published result is interesting, but rarely definitive, and possibly wrong. (Or at least unusual for possibly difficult-to-determine reasons.)

This is another good reason to ignore the media hype for every new paper that comes out. (Besides the fact that journalists perform lossy compression on data.)

But it seems like it's how science is supposed to work: publish your results, see if others confirm your findings, because you might be wrong even if you seem to have done everything correctly and honestly to the best of your ability.

Re: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

#7

Post by llimllib » Sun, Oct 24, 2010, 3:12 AM UTC

The author's research is discussed in an excellent Atlantic article that many may find more accessible: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-dam...

Re: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

#8

Post by fleitz » Sun, Oct 24, 2010, 3:21 AM UTC

Do the paper's findings apply to the paper itself?

Re: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

#9

Post by zbanks » Sun, Oct 24, 2010, 3:22 AM UTC

Self reference much? This is published research...

Clearly these findings are false... or maybe not? Dammit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox

Re: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

#10

Post by alokm » Sun, Oct 24, 2010, 3:27 AM UTC

elbenshira wrote: post #4

First of all, the author of this piece works in Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology. Research is done differently across different disciplines, so it's dangerous to try to expand this to other disciplines. For example, some fields find alpha But research is very weird indeed. The more conference/journal articles you read, the less you trust them. I mean, say a field accepts results alpha Feel free to correct me if…

You will have to use binomial distribution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_distribution) for finding the probability that 5% of them are wrong (Assuming researches are independent). I guess this probability will come to be very small. But the point of this article is not alpha(confidence level) ,It is the bias of the researcher.