Ioannidis 2014 PLOS Med: Difference between revisions
m (Iglesias-Gonzalez Javier moved page Ioannidis 2014 to Ioannidis 2014 PLOS Med) |
No edit summary ย |
||
(4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Publication | {{Publication | ||
|title=Ioannidis JPA (2014) How to make more published research true. PLOS Med 11 | |title=Ioannidis JPA (2014) How to make more published research true. PLOS Med 11:e1001747. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001747 | ||
|info=[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25334033/ PMID:25334033 Open Access] | |||
|authors=Ioannidis | |authors=Ioannidis John PA | ||
|year=2014 | |year=2014 | ||
|journal=PLOS Med | |journal=PLOS Med | ||
|abstract=The achievements of scientific research are amazing. Science has grown from the occupation of a few dilettanti into a vibrant global industry with more than 15,000,000 people authoring more than 25,000,000 scientific papers in 1996โ2011 alone [1]. However, true and readily applicable major discoveries are far fewer. Many new proposed associations and/or effects are false or grossly exaggerated [2],[3], and translation of knowledge into useful applications is often slow and potentially inefficient [4]. Given the abundance of data, research on research (i.e., meta-research) can derive empirical estimates of the prevalence of risk factors for high false-positive rates (underpowered studies; small effect sizes; low pre-study odds; flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, analyses; biases and conflicts of interest; bandwagon patterns; and lack of collaboration) [3]. Currently, an estimated 85% of research resources are wasted [5]. | |abstract=The achievements of scientific research are amazing. Science has grown from the occupation of a few dilettanti into a vibrant global industry with more than 15,000,000 people authoring more than 25,000,000 scientific papers in 1996โ2011 alone [1]. However, true and readily applicable major discoveries are far fewer. Many new proposed associations and/or effects are false or grossly exaggerated [2],[3], and translation of knowledge into useful applications is often slow and potentially inefficient [4]. Given the abundance of data, research on research (i.e., meta-research) can derive empirical estimates of the prevalence of risk factors for high false-positive rates (underpowered studies; small effect sizes; low pre-study odds; flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, analyses; biases and conflicts of interest; bandwagon patterns; and lack of collaboration) [3]. Currently, an estimated 85% of research resources are wasted [5]. | ||
|editor= | |editor= | ||
}} | }} | ||
== Cited by == | |||
{{Labeling | {{Labeling | ||
|additional= | |additional=Ambiguity crisis, Gentle Science | ||
}} | }} |
Latest revision as of 10:16, 4 December 2023
Ioannidis JPA (2014) How to make more published research true. PLOS Med 11:e1001747. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001747 |
Ioannidis John PA (2014) PLOS Med
Abstract: The achievements of scientific research are amazing. Science has grown from the occupation of a few dilettanti into a vibrant global industry with more than 15,000,000 people authoring more than 25,000,000 scientific papers in 1996โ2011 alone [1]. However, true and readily applicable major discoveries are far fewer. Many new proposed associations and/or effects are false or grossly exaggerated [2],[3], and translation of knowledge into useful applications is often slow and potentially inefficient [4]. Given the abundance of data, research on research (i.e., meta-research) can derive empirical estimates of the prevalence of risk factors for high false-positive rates (underpowered studies; small effect sizes; low pre-study odds; flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, analyses; biases and conflicts of interest; bandwagon patterns; and lack of collaboration) [3]. Currently, an estimated 85% of research resources are wasted [5].
Cited by
Labels:
Ambiguity crisis, Gentle Science