🏆 Finalist — NIH Data Sharing Index (“S-Index”) Challenge
Demo corpus. Scores are computed on a select set of biomedical paper/datasets and may be inaccurate for papers outside this corpus — DataRank relies on network effects that improve with scale. We aim to expand this into a fully open resource pending additional funding.

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

PLoS Medicine(2005)10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124Source: DataRank Database

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.

N/A
1.4DataRank · unranked
1.4
Open Access10409 citations · base score 9.3
Cite:
datarank_citation_only_1hop_v6· scope data_onlyMethodology

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
Pipeline:MetadataData-paper checkEnrichmentCitation networkScoring
Enrichment:Pending

FAIR Checklist

Context only (not used in score)
Findable (1/2)
  • Has DOI
Accessible (1/2)
  • Open Access
Interoperable (0/2)
    Reusable (0/3)

      FAIR checklist signals are shown for context only and do not affect DataRank scoring.

      68FAIR score
      F Findable
      100
      A Accessible
      70
      I Interoperable
      50
      R Reusable
      50
      Top 5% by FAIRdeterministic✓ full text read

      Calibrated FAIR score — a parallel quality metric, independent of the DataRank citation score. See the full evaluation →

      DataRank Breakdown

      Base Score 100%Citation Network 0%

      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.

      Read the full methodology →

      Authors (1)

      Related Papers (10)

      Epidemiology(2008)
      co-cited
      10.1097/ede.0b013e31818131e7
      Clinical Trials(2007)
      co-cited
      10.1177/1740774507079441
      PLoS Medicine(2007)
      co-citedsame journal
      10.1371/journal.pmed.0040079
      Nature(2012)
      co-cited
      10.1038/483531a
      American Journal of Epidemiology(2005)
      co-cited
      10.1093/aje/kwi201
      Nature Reviews Neuroscience(2013)
      co-cited
      10.1038/nrn3475