PLoS Med 2 (8):e124 (2005)

Abstract
Published research findings are sometimes refuted by subsequent evidence, says Ioannidis, with ensuing confusion and disappointment
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 69,078
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

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

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

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 296 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

New Scepticism About Science.Carrie Figdor - 2013 - Philosophers' Magazine 60 (1):51 - 56.
Empirical Developments in Retraction.B. K. Redman, H. N. Yarandi & J. F. Merz - 2008 - Journal of Medical Ethics 34 (11):807-809.
Responsible Conduct in Research.P. J. D. Drenth - 2006 - Science and Engineering Ethics 12 (1):13-21.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2016-05-26

Total views
19 ( #579,276 of 2,498,792 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
3 ( #210,517 of 2,498,792 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes