| scholarly article | Q13442814 |
| P819 | ADS bibcode | 2013PNAS..11015031F |
| P356 | DOI | 10.1073/PNAS.1302997110 |
| P3181 | OpenCitations bibliographic resource ID | 2416424 |
| P932 | PMC publication ID | 3773789 |
| P698 | PubMed publication ID | 23980165 |
| P50 | author | John Ioannidis | Q6251482 |
| Daniele Fanelli | Q30505452 | ||
| P2860 | cites work | Do pressures to publish increase scientists' bias? An empirical support from US States Data | Q21090019 |
| Why most published research findings are false | Q21092395 | ||
| Publish or perish in China | Q44764610 | ||
| Bias in genetic association studies: effects of research location and resources | Q45205755 | ||
| The growing competition in Brazilian science: rites of passage, stress and burnout | Q48583037 | ||
| US and non-US submissions: an analysis of reviewer bias | Q52904011 | ||
| Editorial bias in scientific publications | Q53078875 | ||
| Perspectives - Minimizing Observer Bias in Behavioral Studies: A Review and Recommendations | Q57712956 | ||
| Intended and unintended consequences of a publish-or-perish culture: A worldwide survey | Q58291584 | ||
| Streamlined chemical tests rebuffed | Q58930493 | ||
| Overturning some assumptions about the effects of evaluation systems on publication performance | Q61821514 | ||
| "Positive" results increase down the Hierarchy of the Sciences | Q21136404 | ||
| How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data | Q21143770 | ||
| Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries | Q24273200 | ||
| The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results | Q24273204 | ||
| Publication bias in psychological science: Prevalence, methods for identifying and controlling, and implications for the use of meta-analyses | Q24273223 | ||
| Too good to be true: Publication bias in two prominent studies from experimental psychology | Q24273228 | ||
| False-Positive Psychology: Undisclosed Flexibility in Data Collection and Analysis Allows Presenting Anything as Significant | Q24273231 | ||
| Why Most Discovered True Associations Are Inflated | Q24273233 | ||
| Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications | Q24289259 | ||
| Bibliometric Evidence for a Hierarchy of the Sciences | Q27313418 | ||
| Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases | Q28274123 | ||
| Outcome reporting bias in randomized trials funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research | Q28285027 | ||
| The (mis)reporting of statistical results in psychology journals | Q28923488 | ||
| Replication validity of genetic association studies | Q29615456 | ||
| Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles | Q29618882 | ||
| Early extreme contradictory estimates may appear in published research: the Proteus phenomenon in molecular genetics research and randomized trials | Q31170846 | ||
| Country development and manuscript selection bias: a review of published studies. | Q33252381 | ||
| Measuring the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices With Incentives for Truth Telling | Q34031507 | ||
| Unpublished results hide the decline effect | Q34166781 | ||
| Identifying outcome reporting bias in randomised trials on PubMed: review of publications and survey of authors | Q34389549 | ||
| Confirmation bias in studies of nestmate recognition: a cautionary note for research into the behaviour of animals | Q34570901 | ||
| Financial conflicts of interest in psychiatry | Q35652906 | ||
| Commercially funded and United States-based research is more likely to be published; good-quality studies with negative outcomes are not. | Q36808419 | ||
| Interpretation of tests of heterogeneity and bias in meta-analysis | Q37329334 | ||
| Voodoo Correlations Are Everywhere-Not Only in Neuroscience | Q38544879 | ||
| Scientific Misconduct and the Myth of Self-Correction in Science | Q38545992 | ||
| P433 | issue | 37 | |
| P407 | language of work or name | English | Q1860 |
| P304 | page(s) | 15031-6 | |
| P577 | publication date | 2013-09-10 | |
| P1433 | published in | Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America | Q1146531 |
| P1476 | title | US studies may overestimate effect sizes in softer research | |
| P478 | volume | 110 |
| Q24273251 | A surge of p-values between 0.041 and 0.049 in recent decades (but negative results are increasing rapidly too) |
| Q92403841 | Are Effect Sizes in Emotional Intelligence Field Declining? A Meta-Meta Analysis |
| Q58077962 | Bias From Potentially Mischievous Responders on Large-Scale Estimates of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, or Questioning (LGBQ)-Heterosexual Youth Health Disparities |
| Q35085159 | Cerebellar volume in schizophrenia and bipolar I disorder with and without psychotic features |
| Q38337654 | Commentary: Perverse incentives or rotten apples? |
| Q24273319 | Debunking the Myth of Value-Neutral Virginity: Toward Truth in Scientific Advertising |
| Q114679531 | Dynamics of cross-platform attention to retracted papers |
| Q38819374 | Ethics Hype? |
| Q38682425 | How to Conduct and Interpret Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses |
| Q35158628 | Industry sponsorship and publication bias among animal studies evaluating the effects of statins on atherosclerosis and bone outcomes: a meta-analysis |
| Q38206162 | Is Project Towards No Drug Abuse (Project TND) an evidence-based drug and violence prevention program? A review and reappraisal of the evaluation studies |
| Q29032830 | Meta-assessment of bias in science |
| Q35665984 | Misconduct Policies, Academic Culture and Career Stage, Not Gender or Pressures to Publish, Affect Scientific Integrity |
| Q24288654 | No Effect of Weight on Judgments of Importance in the Moral Domain and Evidence of Publication Bias from a Meta-Analysis |
| Q37126950 | On the persistence of low power in psychological science |
| Q52313130 | Promoting reproducibility in addiction research. |
| Q50524642 | Psychology's Replication Crisis and the Grant Culture: Righting the Ship |
| Q24289398 | Publication and other reporting biases in cognitive sciences: detection, prevalence, and prevention |
| Q64052497 | Publication bias examined in meta-analyses from psychology and medicine: A meta-meta-analysis |
| Q28655986 | Publication bias in psychology: a diagnosis based on the correlation between effect size and sample size |
| Q36309082 | Questionable research practices among italian research psychologists |
| Q57166783 | Questionable research practices in student final theses - Prevalence, attitudes, and the role of the supervisor's perceived attitudes |
| Q42432494 | Reply to Nuijten et al.: Reanalyses actually confirm that US studies overestimate effects in softer research |
| Q53127407 | Report the awful truth! |
| Q35983635 | Reporting of Positive Results in Randomized Controlled Trials of Mindfulness-Based Mental Health Interventions |
| Q63362610 | Research Weaving: Visualizing the Future of Research Synthesis |
| Q52314966 | Research design: the methodology for interdisciplinary research framework |
| Q30385483 | Researchers' Individual Publication Rate Has Not Increased in a Century. |
| Q47974408 | Scientific Dishonesty: A Survey of Doctoral Students at the Major Medical Faculties in Sweden and Norway |
| Q38263435 | Scientists Admitting to Plagiarism: A Meta-analysis of Surveys |
| Q37130633 | Significance chasing in research practice: causes, consequences and possible solutions |
| Q42432523 | Standard analyses fail to show that US studies overestimate effect sizes in softer research |
| Q38593885 | The Epistemic Contract: Fostering an Appropriate Level of Public Trust in Experts |
| Q47330098 | The intriguing evolution of effect sizes in biomedical research over time: smaller but more often statistically significant |
| Q57248833 | The replication paradox: Combining studies can decrease accuracy of effect size estimates |
| Q74438477 | US behavioural research studies skew positive |
| Q28597772 | Using publication metrics to highlight academic productivity and research impact |
| Q38291098 | We need more research on causes and consequences, as well as on solutions |
| Q35060121 | Why growing retractions are (mostly) a good sign |
Search more.