Archive for the ‘Scientific Method’ Category

Uh oh: More evidence that “scientific” research is flawed …

September 4, 2015

In a prior post, we reported that Dr. John Ioannidis, a director of Stanford University’s Meta-Research Innovation Center, estimated that about half of published results across medicine were inflated or wrong

For details, see Uh-oh: Most published research findings are false…

Now, the NY Times is reporting findings published in the Journal of Science which concludes that more than half of all studies published in the 3 most prominent psychology journals are seriously flawed and that their results can’t be replicated.

The Times says:

The report appears at a time when the number of retractions of published papers is rising sharply in a wide variety of disciplines.

Scientists have pointed to a hypercompetitive culture across science that favors novel, sexy results and provides little incentive for researchers to replicate the findings of others, or for journals to publish studies that fail to find a splashy result.

======

Here’s the basis for the conclusion that the majority of the studies reported flawed conclusions …

(more…)

Uh-oh: Most published research findings are false…

November 21, 2014

I didn’t say it, the New Yorker magazine did, setting off a buzz in the halls of academia.

The theme of the New Yorker article –- titled “Truth Wears Off” –was that most (academic) research was flawed and not able to be replicated.  This is, the results were at best true under some special circumstances at a specific point in time, but can’t be replicated. At worst, they’re just plain bull.

Hmmm.

image

 

Challenging the integrity of publication-driven academics?

Turns out that the New Yorker wasn’t the first mag on the beat.

(more…)

Uh-oh: Most published research findings are false…

October 29, 2014

I didn’t say it, the New Yorker magazine did, setting off a buzz in the halls of academia.

The theme of the New Yorker article –- titled “Truth Wears Off” –was that most (academic) research was flawed and not able to be replicated.  This is, the results were at best true under some special circumstances at a specific point in time, but can’t be replicated. At worst, they’re just plain bull.

Hmmm.

image

 

Challenging the integrity of publication-driven academics?

Turns out that the New Yorker wasn’t the first mag on the beat.

(more…)

Uh-oh: Most published research findings are false…

June 30, 2013

I didn’t say it, the New Yorker magazine did, setting off a buzz in the halls of academia.

The theme of the New Yorker article –- titled “Truth Wears Off” –was that most (academic) research was flawed and not able to be replicated.  This is, the results were at best true under some special circumstances at a specific point in time, but can’t be replicated. At worst, they’re just plain bull.

Hmmm.

image

 

Challenging the integrity of publication-driven academics?

Turns out that the New Yorker wasn’t the first mag on the beat.

(more…)

Uh-oh: Flawed research … “retraction notices” surge

June 30, 2013
Punch line: An increasing number of published research studies – scientific & academic – are being “retracted” because the outcomes being reported can’t be replicated or are just plain fraudulent.

image

Here are the details ..

(more…)