3 ms·
I didn’t go look up the quote but based on your version here it sounds like roughly half (44%) had some kind of suboptimality, and of those roughly a quarter (2
by svnt 3y ago
I didn’t go look up the quote but based on your version here it sounds like roughly half (44%) had some kind of suboptimality, and of those roughly a quarter (26%) had serious problems preventing them from being relied on.
That means 11% of the total papers should be discarded, which means 89% of the papers can be used.
- InSteady 3y agoAs per usual, science reporting fails to use precise language. It can be interpreted either way, although I think your interpretation is the slightly larger leap based on phrasing. In any case, it is far below the 70% (and not directed broadly at all scientific research) that GP states.
- svnt 3y agoI went and read the article but have not tracked down the original paper. It is at least 26%, because that was the percentage of studies that provided access to their data that proved faked or fatally flawed. It may be substantially higher.