Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
Почему большинство опубликованных результатов исследований являются ложными
2005-08-02
SCID: 54.1/ngjkdjyj
Discuss with AI
multiple testingpublication biasresearch findingsresearcher degrees of freedomstudy power
Figures from the paper
Abstract (AI)
There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field. In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.
Key Findings
1
In many scientific fields, published findings may primarily reflect prevailing bias rather than accurate underlying relationships.
2
Research findings are less likely to be true with smaller studies, smaller effects, extensive testing, flexible methodologies, conflicts of interest, and many teams pursuing statistical significance.
3
Simulations indicate that across most study designs and settings, a reported research claim is more likely to be false than true.
4
The probability that a research claim is true depends on study power, bias, the number of studies, and the field-specific ratio of true to null relationships.
Research Object
Published research findings and research claims across scientific fields
Research Subject
The probability of research claims being true versus false as a function of study power, bias, effect size, multiplicity and preselection of tested relationships, methodological flexibility, conflicts of interest, and team involvement
Publication Details
Publication Date
2005-08-02
Journal
Publisher
ISSN
Cited by
10790
Open access PDF
Access Type
Author Information
Download PDF
Subscribe to digest
References available in scid.ai2
Cited by11
phyloseq: An R Package for Reproducible Interactive Analysis and Graphics of Microbiome Census Data2013
Automated Machine Learning2019
Replications in Psychology Research2012
Machine learning for medical imaging: methodological failures and recommendations for the future2022
The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: an evidence-based review2016
Evidence-based guidelines on the therapeutic use of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS): An update (2014–2018)2019
iDEP: an integrated web application for differential expression and pathway analysis of RNA-Seq data2018
Top 10 Replicated Findings From Behavioral Genetics2016
Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science2015
Scientific Utopia2012
Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications2012