Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

PLoS Med 2 (8):e124 (2005)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Published research findings are sometimes refuted by subsequent evidence, says Ioannidis, with ensuing confusion and disappointment

Categories

Keywords

DOI

10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 86,377

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

My notes

Similar books and articles

Agents, Modeling Processes, and the Allure of Prophecy.William A. Griffin, Manfred D. Laubichler & Werner Callebaut - 2008 - Biological Theory 3 (1):73-78.
New scepticism about science.Carrie Figdor - 2013 - Philosophers' Magazine 60 (1):51 - 56.
Reproducibility of empirical findings: experiments in philosophy and beyond.Hamid Seyedsayamdost - unknown
Publish or perish - self archive to flourish: The green route to open access.Stevan Harnad - unknown
Ethics of open access to biomedical research: Just a special case of ethics of open access to research.Stevan Harnad - 2007 - Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine 2:31.
Detecting bias in biomedical research: looking at study design and published findings is not enough.John H. Noble - 2007 - Monash Bioethics Review 26 (1-2):24-45.
What research paradigms have cognitive psychologists used to study “False memory,” and what are the implications of these choices?K. PezdeK & S. Lam - 2007 - Consciousness and Cognition 16 (1):2-17.
Empirical developments in retraction.B. K. Redman, H. N. Yarandi & J. F. Merz - 2008 - Journal of Medical Ethics 34 (11):807-809.
False claims about false memory research☆.Kimberley A. Wade, Stefanie J. Sharman, Maryanne Garry, Amina Memon, Giuliana Mazzoni, Harald Merckelbach & Elizabeth F. Loftus - 2007 - Consciousness and Cognition 16 (1):18-28.
Questioning the use value of qualitative research findings.Martin Lipscomb - 2012 - Nursing Philosophy 13 (2):112-125.
Scientific retractions and corrections related to misconduct findings.David B. Resnik & Gregg E. Dinse - 2013 - Journal of Medical Ethics 39 (1):46-50.
Responsible conduct in research.P. J. D. Drenth - 2006 - Science and Engineering Ethics 12 (1):13-21.
Scientific misconduct from the perspective of research coordinators: a national survey.E. R. Pryor, B. Habermann & M. E. Broome - 2007 - Journal of Medical Ethics 33 (6):365-369.
Dream interpretation and false beliefs.Elizabeth Loftus - manuscript
Maximizing research progress through Open Access mandates and metrics.Stevan Harnad - unknown

Analytics

Added to PP
2016-05-26

Downloads
23 (#558,991)

6 months
2 (#520,889)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Is Peer Review a Good Idea?Remco Heesen & Liam Kofi Bright - 2021 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 72 (3):635-663.
Rich or thin?Susanna Siegel & Alex Byrne - 2017 - In Bence Nanay (ed.), Current Controversies in Philosophy of Perception. New York, USA: Routledge. pp. 59-80.
Cognitive Enhancement: Methods, Ethics, Regulatory Challenges. [REVIEW]Nick Bostrom - 2009 - Science and Engineering Ethics 15 (3):311-341.

View all 309 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

A statistical paradox.D. V. Lindley - 1957 - Biometrika 44 (1/2):187-192.

Add more references