Top

Published in:

01-01-2014 | What's New in Intensive Care

Research accomplishments that are too good to be true

Author: John P. A. Ioannidis

Published in: Intensive Care Medicine | Issue 1/2014

Excerpt

We are all proud of successes in scientific research. Society at large expects to reap great benefits from these breakthroughs. However, sometimes research accomplishments are just too good to be true: single studies with extravagant results, investigators with too spectacular sudden changes in their career trajectory, or even whole scientific fields where exaggeration becomes a spurious norm. The boundaries between these three levels are hazy, because multiple single studies build investigator CVs and multiple investigators build scientific fields. How do we differentiate spurious success from true excellence? Let us examine a few vignettes of different situations. …

Enserick M. Scientific ethics. Final report on Stapel also blames field as a whole. Science 338:1270–1271

Ioannidis JP, Trikalinos TA, Zintzaras E (2006) Extreme between-study homogeneity in meta-analyses could offer useful insights. J Clin Epidemiol 59:1023–1032PubMedCrossRef

Bhattacharjeet V. The mind of a con man. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/magazine/diederik-stapels-audacious-academic-fraud.html?_r=0. Accessed August 29, 2013

Wise J (2013) Boldt: the great pretender. BMJ 346:f1738PubMedCrossRef

Boldt J, Müller M, Mentges D, Papsdorf M, Hempelmann G (1998) Volume therapy in the critically ill: is there a difference? Intensive Care Med 24(1):28–36PubMedCrossRef

Fanelli D (2009) How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS ONE 4:e5738PubMedCrossRef

Fanelli D (2010) “Positive” results increase down the Hierarchy of the Sciences. PLoS ONE 5:e10068PubMedCrossRef

Wislar JS, Flanagin A, Fontanarosa PB et al (2012) Honorary and ghost authorship in high impact biomedical journals: a cross-sectional survey. BMJ 343:d6128CrossRef

John LK, Loewenstein G, Prelec D (2012) Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth-telling. Psychol Sci. doi:10.1177/0956797611430953

10.

Vul E, Harris C, Winkielman P, Pashler H (2009) Puzzlingly high correlations in fMRI studies of emotion, personality, and social cognition. Persp Psychol Sci 4:274–290CrossRef

11.

Fanelli D (2013) Redefine misconduct as distorted reporting. Nature 494:149PubMedCrossRef

12.

Alsheikh-Ali AA, Qureshi W, Al-Mallah MH, Ioannidis JP (2011) Public availability of published research data in high-impact journals. PLoS ONE 6:e24357PubMedCrossRef

13.

Doshi P, Jefferson T, Del Mar C (2012) The imperative to share clinical study reports: recommendations from the Tamiflu experience. PLoS Med 9:e1001201PubMedCrossRef

14.

Ioannidis JP (2012) The importance of potential studies that have not existed and registration of observational data sets. JAMA 308:575–576PubMedCrossRef

15.

Ioannidis JP (2013) Scientific inbreeding and same-team replication: type D personality as an example. J Psychosom Res 73:408–410CrossRef

Title: Research accomplishments that are too good to be true
Author: John P. A. Ioannidis
Publication date: 01-01-2014
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: Intensive Care Medicine / Issue 1/2014
Print ISSN: 0342-4642
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1238
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-013-3100-z

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Research accomplishments that are too good to be true

Excerpt

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Excerpt

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2014

Are preoperative oral care bundles needed to prevent postoperative pneumonia?

Physicians declining patient enrollment in clinical trials: what are the implications?

Aprotinin revisited

Critical illness in homeless persons is poorly studied: a systematic review of the literature

Persuading bereaved families to permit organ donation

“Are you sure it’s about ‘age’?”