Are Most Published Research Findings False?
-
Andreas Diekmann
Summary
In a provocative article Ioannidis (2005) argues that, in disciplines employing statistical tests of significance, professional journals report more wrong than true significant results. This short note sketches the argument and explores under what conditions the assertion holds. The “positive predictive value” (PPV) is lower than 1/2 if the a priori probability of the truth of a hypothesis is low. However, computation of the PPV includes only significant results. If both significant and non-significant results are taken into account the “total error ratio” (TER) will not exceed 1/2 provided no extremely large publication bias is present. Moreover, it is shown that theory-driven research may reduce the proportion of errors. Also, the role of replications is emphasized; replication studies of original research are so important because they drastically decrease the error ratio.
© 2011 by Lucius & Lucius, Stuttgart
Articles in the same Issue
- Titelei
- Inhalt / Contents
- Guest Editorial
- Abhandlungen / Original Papers
- The Production of Historical “Facts”: How the Wrong Number of Participants in the Leipzig Monday Demonstration on October 9, 1989 Became a Convention
- “True Believers” or Numerical Terrorism at the Nuclear Power Plant
- One-eyed Epidemiologic Dummies at Nuclear Power Plants
- Are Most Published Research Findings False?
- What Fuels Publication Bias?
- The Identification and Prevention of Publication Bias in the Social Sciences and Economics
- Benford’s Law as an Instrument for Fraud Detection in Surveys Using the Data of the Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP)
- When Does the Second-Digit Benford’s Law-Test Signal an Election Fraud?
- Difficulties Detecting Fraud? The Use of Benford’s Law on Regression Tables
- Plagiarism in Student Papers: Prevalence Estimates Using Special Techniques for Sensitive Questions
- Pitfalls of International Comparative Research: Taking Acquiescence into Account
- Buchbesprechungen / Book Reviews
Articles in the same Issue
- Titelei
- Inhalt / Contents
- Guest Editorial
- Abhandlungen / Original Papers
- The Production of Historical “Facts”: How the Wrong Number of Participants in the Leipzig Monday Demonstration on October 9, 1989 Became a Convention
- “True Believers” or Numerical Terrorism at the Nuclear Power Plant
- One-eyed Epidemiologic Dummies at Nuclear Power Plants
- Are Most Published Research Findings False?
- What Fuels Publication Bias?
- The Identification and Prevention of Publication Bias in the Social Sciences and Economics
- Benford’s Law as an Instrument for Fraud Detection in Surveys Using the Data of the Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP)
- When Does the Second-Digit Benford’s Law-Test Signal an Election Fraud?
- Difficulties Detecting Fraud? The Use of Benford’s Law on Regression Tables
- Plagiarism in Student Papers: Prevalence Estimates Using Special Techniques for Sensitive Questions
- Pitfalls of International Comparative Research: Taking Acquiescence into Account
- Buchbesprechungen / Book Reviews
