Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

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)."

Comments

Re:Peer review helps

[ShieldW0lf]

The problem is money. If we lived in a world where you gained power through the trust and esteem of your fellow man, no one would publish things they weren't confident in. But we don't. We live in a world where you gain power through the accumulation of leverage that allows you to dominate your fellow man despite their wishes and opinions. In this world, who gives a shit if you were wrong or not? Who gives a shit if anyone knows? It doesn't matter, as long as you got paid before they find out. Then you can trample over them either way.

You want to fix it, you move the power basis from economics to politics. Then, people will actually start caring about their reputation. Without addressing this fundamental problem, nothing will change in the slightest.

Need a revolution to do that though... the incumbents will without a doubt use any and all forces that their disposal to prevent a fair and equitable system from ever coming into existence.

Re:Peer review helps

[ShieldW0lf]

The evidence lies in the pairing. When you see a political system that has an inherent nature that allows self-determination and involvement, it is paired with an economic system that subverts it. When you see an economic system that does the same, it's paired with a political system that subverts it. In our world, it's Democracy that gives you freedom and Capitalism that subverts your freedom. In eastern countries, it's Communism that gives you freedom and Totalitarianism that subverts your freedom. Free people follow leadership, and are discerning in how they do it. But none of us on this planet live in systems that would allow that to occur.