Why most published research findings are false: Ioannidis JP, Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Ioannina School of Medicine, Ioannina, Greece

By J. Brooks. 2008

745 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

What Do NLP Researchers Believe? Results of the NLP Community Metasurvey (2022, background): “On the other hand, it could simply mean that many reported findings are of little importance or are not robust, which would arguably not make NLP unique among sciences (Ioannidis, 2005).”
Charting the future of social psychology on stormy seas: Winners, losers, and recommendations (2016, background): “Stroebe (2016–in this issue) finds it necessary to defend social psychology against the sweeping claim by Ioannidis (1997) that most published research findings are false.”
Reflections on the replication corner: In praise of conceptual replications (2015, neutral): “…that not only did Maniadis et al. successfully replicate Ariely et al. (2003): ironically, much of their paper presented a theoretical model of replications that was an exact replication of the model presented by Ioannidis (2005) in his widely cited “Why Most Published Research Findings are False.””
An exploratory test for an excess of significant findings (2007, background): “However, undue emphasis on significance levels may bias the accumulated scientific evidence [5].”
Reconnecting p-Value and Posterior Probability Under One- and Two-Sided Tests (2018, background): “As there is a widespread notion that medical research is interpreted mainly based on p-value, Ioannidis (2005) claimed that most of the published findings in medicine are false.”