Difference between revisions of "Ioannidis 2014 PLOS Med"
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Publication | {{Publication | ||
|title=Ioannidis JPA (2014) How to make more published research true. PLOS Med 11(10): e1001747. | |title=Ioannidis JPA (2014) How to make more published research true. PLOS Med 11(10): e1001747. | ||
|info=[https:// | |info=[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25334033/ PMID:25334033 Open Access] | ||
|authors=Ioannidis JPA | |authors=Ioannidis JPA | ||
|year=2014 | |year=2014 | ||
Revision as of 12:23, 26 January 2021
| Ioannidis JPA (2014) How to make more published research true. PLOS Med 11(10): e1001747. |
Ioannidis JPA (2014) PLOS Med
Abstract: The achievements of scientific research are amazing. Science has grown from the occupation of a few dilettanti into a vibrant global industry with more than 15,000,000 people authoring more than 25,000,000 scientific papers in 1996–2011 alone [1]. However, true and readily applicable major discoveries are far fewer. Many new proposed associations and/or effects are false or grossly exaggerated [2],[3], and translation of knowledge into useful applications is often slow and potentially inefficient [4]. Given the abundance of data, research on research (i.e., meta-research) can derive empirical estimates of the prevalence of risk factors for high false-positive rates (underpowered studies; small effect sizes; low pre-study odds; flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, analyses; biases and conflicts of interest; bandwagon patterns; and lack of collaboration) [3]. Currently, an estimated 85% of research resources are wasted [5].
• Bioblast editor: Iglesias-Gonzalez J
Cited by
- Iglesias-Gonzalez et al (2021) Proficiency test in mt-respiration: A necessary tool for reliable and reproducible results. MitoFit Preprints 2021 (in prep).
Labels:
MitoFit 2021 PT
