Why Most Published Research Findings Are False A Research Paper by John P.A. Ioannidis journals.plos.org 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. researchsciencetruth
The problem with trees Many systems are organized hierarchically. The CERNDOC documentation system is an example, as is the Unix file system, and the VMS/HELP system. A tree has the practical advantage of giving every node a unique name. However, it does not allow the system to model the real world. For example, in a hierarchical HELP system such as VMS/HELP, one often gets to a lead on a tree such as: HELP COMPILER SOURCE_FORMAT PRAGMAS DEFAULTS only to find a reference to another leaf: Please see HELP COMPILER COMMAND OPTIONS DEFAULTS PRAGMAS and it is necessary to leave the system and re-enter it. What was needed was a link from one node to another, because in this case the information was not naturally organized into a tree. Tim Berners-Lee, Seeing With Fresh Eyes A City Is Not a Tree hierarchywww