3 ms·
> In 2005, epidemiologist John Ioannidis of Stanford University in California suggested that most published findings are false; since then, a string of high-pro
by Finster 13y ago
> In 2005, epidemiologist John Ioannidis of Stanford University in California suggested that most published findings are false; since then, a string of high-profile replication problems has forced scientists to rethink how they evaluate results.
That's what is supposed to happen, though, right? You publish your findings. Others try to reproduce. They publish THEIR findings, etc. etc. If most published findings are false, it sounds like the process is working as designed.
- pessimizer 13y agoBad papers can be generated. published, and cited a lot faster than failures to replicate.
- Finster 13y agoSo, doesn't that mean we should be blaming idiotic news media outlets that tend to generalize and publish scoops on scientific papers too quickly?
- capnrefsmmat 13y agoYes and no. Yes, the media sucks, but no, most scientific papers are not replicated -- or if they are, it's by a hapless grad student using the results in their research, only to find they don't hold up. The hapless grad student usually doesn't get to publish this, because negative results are boring and not usually published in prestigious journals. Most scientists have better things to do than replicate previous findings, unless that previous finding directly bears on their own work.