Most published scientific research papers are wrong, according to a new analysis. Assuming that the new paper is itself correct, problems with experimental and statistical methods mean that there is less than a 50% chance that the results of any randomly chosen scientific paper are true.
[…]Surprisingly, [epidemiologist John] Ioannidis says another predictor of false findings is if a field is “hot”, with many teams feeling pressure to beat the others to statistically significant findings.
But Solomon Snyder, senior editor at the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and a neuroscientist at Johns Hopkins Medical School in Baltimore, US, says most working scientists understand the limitations of published research.
“When I read the literature, I’m not reading it to find proof like a textbook. I’m reading to get ideas. So even if something is wrong with the paper, if they have the kernel of a novel idea, that’s something to think about,” he says.
—Kurt Kleiner —Most scientific papers are probably wrong (New Scientist)
Post was last modified on 18 Oct 2019 10:12 am
View Comments
This is my favorite line: "When I read the literature, I'm not reading it to find proof like a textbook." But I AM looking for that - that's why I read papers in mathematics! All - that's right, all - papers based on population surveys and statistical analysis are potentially faulty! Come to contemporary math (MA105) this semester to learn about statistical variation and sampling problems!
PS - sorry about the half-comment above this - feel free to delete it.
[Done! --DGJ]