\u00e2\u20ac\u201cDay 5 of Just Science Week\u00e2\u20ac\u201c<\/p>\n
John Ioannides<\/a> has published a rather influential paper (that will not so often be cited as read): “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”. In principle his arguments are (numbering by me):<\/p>\n \n1. a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller According to good scientific practice, this could be tested – the only problem is to recognize if the result of a single study is wrong. To be continued in 20 years…<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u00e2\u20ac\u201cDay 5 of Just Science Week\u00e2\u20ac\u201c John Ioannides has published a rather influential paper (that will not so often be cited as read): “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”. In principle his arguments are (numbering by me): 1. a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field … Continue reading Poll: Are most published research findings wrong?<\/span>
\n2. when effect sizes are smaller
\n3. when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships
\n4. where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes
\n5. when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice
\n6. and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n