Ioannidis Questions Strength of Psychology and Neuroscience Literature

Last week, well-known Stanford scientist John Ioannidis and his colleague Denes Szucs released a new analysis online. They examined research published in eighteen prominent psychology and cognitive neuroscience journals over the past five years and found that the studies in these fields are generally of “unacceptably low” power and suffer from inflated effect sizes and selective reporting. Open Access → Ioannidis is perhaps most well-known for his 2005 article in PloS, “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False,” in which he explained his statistical analyses indicating that “for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true.” “Moreover,” he wrote, “for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias.” In his latest paper,…


Link to Full Article: Ioannidis Questions Strength of Psychology and Neuroscience Literature