Existing Literature · Record 6

How to Make More Published Research True

John P. A. Ioannidis

PLoS Medicine2014Source: crossrefL4 · Ready for evaluationComplete · ready for review0 citations DOI 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001747View open PDF
Visual content requires source verification

The text and sections are usable, but figures or tables were not extracted. Review the connected PDF before relying on visual evidence.

Full-text reading

Parsed chapter content from the source PDF. Open one chapter at a time.

Sections

Machine-extracted from the source PDF
ReferencesPages 5–6
1. Boyack KW, Klavans R, Sorensen AA, Ioannidis JP (2013) A list of highly influential biomedical researchers, 1996–2011. Eur J Clin Invest 43: 1339–1365. 2. Ioannidis JP (2008) Why most discovered true associations are inflated. Epidemiology 19: 640– 648. 3. Ioannidis JP (2005) Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med 2: e124. 4. Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG, Alexiou GA, Gouvias TC, Ioannidis JP (2008) Life cycle of translational research for medical interventions. Science 321: 1298–1299. 5. Macleod MR, Michie S, Roberts I, Dirnagl U, Chalmers I, et al. (2014) Biomedical research: increasing value, reducing waste. Lancet 383: 101–104. 6. Nicholson JM and Ioannidis JPA (2012) Research grants: Conform and be funded. Nature 492: 34–36. 7. Wenneras C, Wold A (1997) Nepotism and sexism in peer-review. Nature 387: 341–343. 8. Nickerson RS (1998) Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Rev Gen Psychol 2: 175–220. 9. Mynatta CR, Dohertya ME, Tweneya RD (1977) Confirmation bias in a simulated research environment: An experimental study of scientific inference. Quarterly J Exp Psychol 29: 85–95. 10. Greenhalgh T, Howick J, Maskrey N, Evidence Based Medicine Renaissance Group (2014) Evidence based medicine: a movement in crisis? BMJ 348: g3725. 11. Stamatakis E1, Weiler R, Ioannidis JP (2013) Undue industry influences that distort healthcare research, strategy, expenditure and practice: a review. Eur J Clin Invest 43: 469–475. 12. Chalmers I, Bracken MB, Djulbegovic B, Garattini S, Grant J, et al. (2014) How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. Lancet 383: 156–165. 13. Rennie D, Flanagin A (2014) Research on peer review and biomedical publication: furthering the quest to improve the quality of reporting. JAMA 311: 1019–1020. 14. Danthi N, Wu CO, Shi P, Lauer M (2014) Percentile ranking and citation impact of a large cohort of national heart, lung, and blood institutefunded cardiovascular R01 grants. Circ Res 114: 600–606. 15. Ioannidis JP (2011) More time for research: fund people not projects. Nature 477: 529–531. 16. NCI-NHGRI Working Group on Replication in Association Studies, Chanock SJ, Manolio T, Boehnke M, Boerwinkle E, et al. (2007) Replicating genotype-phenotype associations. Nature 447(7145): 655–660. 17. Ioannidis JP1, Tarone R, McLaughlin JK (2011) The false-positive to false-negative ratio in epidemiologic studies. Epidemiology 22: 450–456. 18. Panagiotou OA, Willer CJ, Hirschhorn JN, Ioannidis JP (2013) The power of meta-analysis in genome-wide association studies. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet 14: 441–465. 19. Khoury MJ, Lam TK, Ioannidis JP, Hartge P, Spitz MR, et al. (2013) Transforming epidemiology for 21st century medicine and public health. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 22: 508–516. 20. Bissell M (2013) Reproducibility: The risks of the replication drive. Nature 503: 333–334. 21. Siontis KC, Hernandez-Boussard T, Ioannidis JP (2013) Overlapping meta-analyses on the same topic: survey of published studies. BMJ 347: f4501. 22. Zarin DA, Ide NC, Tse T, Harlan WR, West JC, et al (2007) Issues in the registration of clinical trials. JAMA 297: 2112–2120. 23. Zarin DA, Tse T, Williams RJ, Califf RM, Ide NC (2011) The ClinicalTrials.gov results database–update and key issues. N Engl J Med 364: 852–860. 24. Dwan K, Gamble C, Williamson PR, Kirkham JJ, Reporting Bias Group (2013) Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias an updated review. PLoS ONE 8: e66844. 25. Chan AW, Song F, Vickers A, Jefferson T, Dickersin K, et al. (2014) Increasing value and reducing waste: addressing inaccessible research. Lancet 383: 257–266. 26. Dal-Re´ R, Ioannidis JP, Bracken MB, Buffler PA, Chan AW, et al. (2014) Making prospective registration of observational research a reality. Sci Transl Med 6: 224cm1. 27. Macleod M (2011) Why animal research needs to improve. Nature 477: 511. 28. Stodden V, Guo P, Ma Z (2013) Toward reproducible computational research: an empirical analysis of data and code policy adoption by journals. PLoS ONE 8: e67111. 29. Donoho DL (2010) An invitation to reproducible computational research. Biostatistics 11: 385–388. 30. Peng RD (2011) Reproducible research in computational science. Science 334: 1226–1227. 31. Peng RD, Dominici F, Zeger SL (2006) Reproducible epidemiologic research. Am J Epidemiol 163: 783–789. 32. Doshi P, Goodman SN, Ioannidis JP (2013) Raw data from clinical trials: within reach? Trends Pharmacol Sci 34: 645–647. 33. Montfortin C (2006) Weight of the evidence or wait for the evidence? Protecting underground miners from diesel particulate matter. Am J Public Health 96: 271–276. 34. Kassirer JP, Angell M (1994) The journal’s policy on cost-effectiveness analyses. N Engl J Med 331: 669–670. 35. Jørgensen AW, Hilden J, Gøtzsche PC (2006) Cochrane reviews compared with industry supported meta-analyses and other meta-analyses of the same drugs: systematic review. BMJ 333: 782. 36. Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP (2012) Content area experts as authors: helpful or harmful for systematic reviews and meta-analyses? BMJ 345: e7031. 37. Institute of Medicine (2011) Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. 38. Nuzzo R (2014) Scientific method: statistical errors. Nature 506: 150–152. 39. Johnson VE (2013) Revised standards for statistical evidence. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 110: 19313–19317. 40. Young SS, Karr A (2011) Deming, data, and observational studies: a process out of control and needing fixing. Significance 8: 116–120. 41. Pashler H, Harris CR (2012) Is the replicability crisis overblown? Three arguments examined. Persp Psychol Sci 7: 531–536. 42. Simmons JP, Nelson LD, Simonsohn U (2011) False-positive psychology: undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychol Sci 22: 1359–1366. 43. Ioannidis JP, Doucouliagos C (2013) What’s to know about the credibility of empirical economics. J Economic Surveys 27: 997–1004. 44. Fanelli D (2010) ‘‘Positive’’ results increase down the Hierarchy of the Sciences. PLoS ONE 5: e10068. 45. Poste G (2012) Biospecimens, biomarkers, and burgeoning data: the imperative for more rigorous research standards. Trends Mol Med 18: 717–722. 46. Landis SC, Amara SG, Asadullah K, Austin CP, Blumenstein R, et al. (2012) A call for transparent reporting to optimize the predictive value of preclinical research. Nature 490: 187–191. 47. Collins FS, Tabak LA (2014) NIH plans to enhance reproducibility. Nature 505: 612–613. 48. Simera I, Moher D, Hoey J, Schulz KF, Altman DG (2010) A catalogue of reporting guidelines for health research. Eur J Clin Invest 40: 35–53. 49. Nosek BA, Bar-Anand Y (2012) Scientific utopia: I. Opening scientific communication. Psychological Inquiry 23: 217–223. 50. Glasziou P, Altman DG, Bossuyt P, Boutron I, Clarke M, et al.(2014) Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research. Lancet 383: 267–276. 51. Al-Shahi Salman R, Beller E, Kagan J, Hemminki E, Phillips RS, et al. (2014) Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research regulation and management. Lancet 383: 176–185. 52. Khoury MJ1, Gwinn M, Dotson WD, Schully SD (2012) Knowledge integration at the center of genomic medicine. Genet Med 14: 643–647. 53. Al-Shahi Salman R, Beller E, Kagan J, Hemminki E, Phillips RS, et al. (2014) Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research regulation and management. Lancet 383: 176–185. PLOS Medicine | www.plosmedicine.org October | Volume | Issue | e1001747 54. Krumholz SD, Egilman DS, Ross JS (2011) Study of Neurontin: titrate to effect, profile of safety (STEPS) trial. A narrative account of a gabapentin seeding trial. Arch Intern Med 171: 1100–1107. 55. Van Noorden R (2014) China tops Europe in R&D intensity. Nature 505: 144–145. 56. Begley CG, Ellis LM (2012) Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature 483: 531–533. 57. Prinz F, Schlange T, Asadullah K (2011) Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? Nat Rev Drug Discov 10: 712. 58. Christakis DA, Zimmerman FJ (2013) Rethinking reanalysis. JAMA 310: 2499–2500. 59. Young NS, Ioannidis JP, Al-Ubaydli O (2008) Why current publication practices may distort science. PLoS Med 5: e201. 60. Laine C, Horton R, DeAngelis CD, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, et al. (2007) Clinical trial registration: looking back and moving ahead. JAMA 298: 93– 94. 61. Witten DM, Tibshirani R (2013) Scientific research in the age of omics: the good, the bad, and the sloppy. J Am Med Inform Assoc 20: 125–127. 62. Ioannidis JP, Khoury MJ (2014) Assessing value in biomedical research: The PQRST of appraisal and reward. JAMA 312: 483–484. doi:10.1001/ jama.2014.6932. 63. Ioannidis JP (2010) Is there a glass ceiling for highly cited scientists at the top of research universities? FASEB J 24: 4635–4638. 64. Nosek BA, Spies JR, Motyl M (2012) Scientific Utopia: II. Restructuring incentives and practices to promote truth over publishability. Persp Psychological Sci 7: 615–631. 65. Hayden EC (2014) Cancer-gene data sharing boosted. Nature 510: 198. 66. Krumholz HM, Gross CP, Blount KL, Ritchie JD, Hodshon B, et al. (2014) Sea change in open science and data sharing: leadership by industry. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 7: 499–504. 67. Editorial (2014) Data sharing will pay dividends. Nature 505: 131. 68. Bohannon J (2013) Who’s afraid of peer review? Science 342: 60–65. 69. Hopewell S, Collins GS, Boutron I, Yu LM, Cook J, et al. (2014) Impact of peer review on reports of randomised trials published in open peer review journals: retrospective before and after study. BMJ 349: g4145. 70. Schein M, Paladugu R (2001) Redundant surgical publications: tip of the iceberg? Surgery 129: 655–661. 71. Hagen NT (2008) Harmonic allocation of authorship credit: source-level correction of bibliometric bias assures accurate publication and citation analysis. PLoS ONE 3: e4021. 72. Aziz NA, Rozing MP (2013) Profit (p)-index: the degree to which authors profit from co-authors. PLoS ONE 8: e59814. 73. Yank V, Rennie D (1999) Disclosure of researcher contributions: a study of original research articles in The Lancet. Ann Intern Med 130: 661–670. 74. Wagenmakers EJ, Forstman BU (2014) Rewarding high-power replication research. Cortex 51: 105–106. PLOS Medicine | www.plosmedicine.org October | Volume | Issue | e1001747
Authors and related literature

Authors

IdFull nameOrcidCurrent affiliationAffiliationAuthor orderInstitutions
33John P. A. Ioannidis——[]1[]

Similar Literature

No similar-paper recommendations are available.

Reader evaluations (10)

Reader Evaluations

Registered readers · human judgment
Evaluator E-00015Aug 22, 20263.55

Deterministic demo evaluation after reviewing the paper's main content and methods.

Originality 3Rigor 4Evidence 5Significance 2Reproducibility 3Clarity 4
Evaluator E-00014Aug 22, 20263.15

Deterministic demo evaluation after reviewing the paper's main content and methods.

Originality 2Rigor 3Evidence 4Significance 5Reproducibility 2Clarity 3
Evaluator E-00013Aug 22, 20263.55

Deterministic demo evaluation after reviewing the paper's main content and methods.

Originality 5Rigor 2Evidence 3Significance 4Reproducibility 5Clarity 2
Evaluator E-00012Aug 22, 20263.75

Deterministic demo evaluation after reviewing the paper's main content and methods.

Originality 4Rigor 5Evidence 2Significance 3Reproducibility 4Clarity 5
Evaluator E-00011Aug 22, 20263.55

Deterministic demo evaluation after reviewing the paper's main content and methods.

Originality 3Rigor 4Evidence 5Significance 2Reproducibility 3Clarity 4
Evaluator E-00010Aug 22, 20263.15

Deterministic demo evaluation after reviewing the paper's main content and methods.

Originality 2Rigor 3Evidence 4Significance 5Reproducibility 2Clarity 3
Evaluator E-00009Aug 22, 20263.55

Deterministic demo evaluation after reviewing the paper's main content and methods.

Originality 5Rigor 2Evidence 3Significance 4Reproducibility 5Clarity 2
Evaluator E-00008Aug 22, 20263.75

Deterministic demo evaluation after reviewing the paper's main content and methods.

Originality 4Rigor 5Evidence 2Significance 3Reproducibility 4Clarity 5
Evaluator E-00007Aug 22, 20263.55

Deterministic demo evaluation after reviewing the paper's main content and methods.

Originality 3Rigor 4Evidence 5Significance 2Reproducibility 3Clarity 4
Evaluator E-00006Aug 22, 20263.15

Deterministic demo evaluation after reviewing the paper's main content and methods.

Originality 2Rigor 3Evidence 4Significance 5Reproducibility 2Clarity 3