Why Most Published Research Findings Are False 259
Hugh Pickens writes "Researchers have found that the winner's curse may apply to the publication of scientific papers and that incorrect findings are more likely to end up in print than correct findings. Dr John Ioannidis bases his argument about incorrect research partly on a study of 49 papers on the effectiveness of medical interventions published in leading journals that had been cited by more than 1,000 other scientists, and his finding that, within only a few years, almost a third of the papers had been refuted by other studies. Ioannidis argues that scientific research is so difficult — the sample sizes must be big and the analysis rigorous — that most research may end up being wrong, and the 'hotter' the field, the greater the competition is, and the more likely that published research in top journals could be wrong. Another study earlier this year found that among the studies submitted to the FDA about the effectiveness of antidepressants, almost all of those with positive results were published, whereas very few of those with negative results saw print, although negative results are potentially just as informative as positive (if less exciting)."
Obvious question ... (Score:5, Funny)
How long until some researcher releases a study showing that Dr. Ioannidis' research findings are themselves wrong?
Re:Obvious question ... (Score:5, Funny)
We apologise again for the fault in the research (Score:5, Funny)
I found a study (Score:3, Funny)
Re:He's merely observing the obvious, and no. (Score:5, Funny)
In order to test the Global Warming theory you need 2 carbon copies of 1900 earth
That wouldn't work, as the copies would be comprised mostly of carbon powder, so the geophysics would be completely different.
Re:Obvious question ... (Score:5, Funny)
...and the other 11.8% have arithmetic errors.