Supplement:

http://www.nature.com/nphoton/journal/v8/n9/full/nphoton.2014.210.html

Supplement:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

Abstract

Summary

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.

Published research findings are sometimes refuted by subsequent evidence, with ensuing confusion and disappointment. Refutation and controversy is seen across the range of research designs, from clinical trials and traditional epidemiological studies [1–3] to the most modern molecular research [4,5]. There is increasing concern that in modern research, false findings may be the majority or even the vast majority of published research claims [6–8]. However, this should not be surprising. It can be proven that most claimed research findings are false. Here I will examine the key factors that influence this problem and some corollaries thereof.

Supplement link:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2561077/

Why Current Publication Practices May Distort Science

Summary

The current system of publication in biomedical research provides a distorted view of the reality of scientific data that are generated in the laboratory and clinic. This system can be studied by applying principles from the field of economics. The “winner's curse,” a more general statement of publication bias, suggests that the small proportion of results chosen for publication are unrepresentative of scientists' repeated samplings of the real world. The self-correcting mechanism in science is retarded by the extreme imbalance between the abundance of supply (the output of basic science laboratories and clinical investigations) and the increasingly limited venues for publication (journals with sufficiently high impact). This system would be expected intrinsically to lead to the misallocation of resources. The scarcity of available outlets is artificial, based on the costs of printing in an electronic age and a belief that selectivity is equivalent to quality. Science is subject to great uncertainty: we cannot be confident now which efforts will ultimately yield worthwhile achievements. However, the current system abdicates to a small number of intermediates an authoritative prescience to anticipate a highly unpredictable future. In considering society's expectations and our own goals as scientists, we believe that there is a moral imperative to reconsider how scientific data are judged and disseminated.

Supplement link:

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21588069-scientific-research-has-changed-world-now-it-needs-change-itself-how-science-goes-wrong

Supplement link:

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/sep/13/scientific-research-fraud-bad-practice

Impact Factor has been considered as a vital Index for quality assessment.

Now see this link and imagine how many researchers might have benefited /suffered (rightly or wrongly) on this account:

http://occamstypewriter.org/scurry/2012/08/13/sick-of-impact-factors/

Please read this link

[High Impact = High Statistical Standards? Not Necessarily So]

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0056180

Excerpt from the Discussion:

To summarize our findings, even if we do not endorse the Ioannidis [20] claim that “most published research findings are false”, we are convinced that without an elimination of the “Null Ritual” and a rapid adoption of a statistical reform, “most published research findings have a high probability of being false”.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/09/how-journals-nature-science-cell-damage-science

Quality indices still uncertain.

http://www.lutz-bornmann.de/icons/declaration.pdf

http://iai.asm.org/content/79/10/3855.full

Excerpt from the article:

Conclusions.The increasing rate of retracted scientific articles is a disturbing trend. Although correction of the scientific record is laudable per se, erroneous or fraudulent research can cause enormous harm, diverting other scientists to unproductive lines of investigation, leading to the unfair distribution of scientific resources, and in the worst cases, even resulting in inappropriate medical treatment of patients (6, 85). Furthermore, retractions can erode public confidence in science. Any retraction represents a tremendous waste of scientific resources that are often supported with public funding, and the retraction of published work can undermine the faith of the public in science and their willingness to provide continued support. The corrosive impact of retracted science is disproportionate to the relatively small number of retracted articles. The scientific process is heavily dependent on trust. To the extent that misconduct erodes scientists' confidence in the literature and in each other, it seriously damages science itself. As Arst has noted, “All honest scientists are victims of scientists who commit misconduct” (4). Yet, retractions also have tremendous value. They signify that science corrects its mistakes.

I have added the supplementing threads for a better understanding of the significance of the question. One more link:

http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2014/09/11/exhibition-prohibition-why-shouldnt-publishers-celebrate-an-improved-impact-factor/

Excerpts:

Impact factors are journal-level metrics, not article-level or researcher-level metrics.

They represent an average for a journal. They change. They can be trended.

Thus the indices used to ascertain the quality being unreliable, the publications must not be given an undue/disproportionate weightage while ignoring all other parameters.