Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False is a research paper published in PLoS Medicine (2005). On theSindex it has a DataRank of 1.4. It has been cited 10,409 times. Its calibrated FAIR score is 68/100.
Abstract
There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field. In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.
›Data sources & pipeline
FAIR Checklist
Context only (not used in score)- Has DOI
- Open Access
FAIR checklist signals are shown for context only and do not affect DataRank scoring.
Calibrated FAIR score — a parallel quality metric, independent of the DataRank citation score. See the full evaluation →
DataRank Breakdown
Base Score Contribution
1.4
From this paper's citation signal
Citation Network Contribution
0
Citation network not refreshed for this result
This paper's DataRank is currently driven only by its base citation score. Citation network data was not refreshed for this result.
Learn more about DataRank methodology →Why this DataRank?
DataRank blends this paper's own citation count with the influence of the papers that cite it. Here, roughly 100% comes from its base citations and 0% from the citation network.
- Base score B(p)
- log1p(citation_count) — grows sub-linearly, so a paper with 1,000 citations is not 10× a paper with 100.
- Network N(p)
- Σ over citers of log1p(Cq) ÷ max(outdegreeq, 1). Being cited by a highly-cited paper with few references counts most.
- Damping factor d = 0.85
- DataRank = (1−d)·B(p) + d·N(p) — the two cards above are each already multiplied by their share.
- Self-citations excluded
- Citers sharing any OpenAlex author ID with this paper are filtered out before the network sum.
Citers are pulled from OpenAlex sorted by cited_by_count:descand capped per paper, so when the cap binds we keep the highest-signal references and the score is reproducible across reruns.