Meta-research: Why research on research matters

PLoS Biology

Volumn 16, Issue 3, 2018, Pages

  Ioannidis, John P A ^a,b  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DRIVER; HUMAN; REPRODUCIBILITY; VALIDITY; INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); METHODOLOGY;

INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 85045239029     PISSN: 15449173     EISSN: 15457885     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2005468     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Ioannidis JP, Fanelli D, Dunne DD, Goodman SN, Meta-research: Evaluation and improvement of research methods and practices. PLoS Biol. 2015;13: e1002264. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002264 26431313
2. Orduna-Malea E, Ayllon JM, Martin-Martin A, Lopez-Cozar ED, Methods for estimating the size of Google Scholar. Scientometrics. 2015;104: 931–49.
3. Wang Y, Hu R, Liu M, The geotemporal demographics of academic journals from 1950 to 2013 according to Ulrich's database. J Informetrics. 2017;11: 655–71.
4. Webometrics. List of universities (as of January 2017). [Cited 21 January 2018]. Available from: http://www.webometrics.info/en/node/54.
5. Ioannidis JP, Are medical conferences useful? And for whom?JAMA. 2012;307: 1257–8. doi: 10.1001/jama.2012.360 22453564
6. Bekelman JE, Li Y, Gross CP, Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review. JAMA. 2003;289: 454–465. 12533125
7. Iqbal SA, Wallach JD, Khoury MJ, Schully SD, Ioannidis JP, Reproducible research practices and transparency across the biomedical literature. PLoS Biol. 2016;14: e1002333. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002333 26726926
8. Fanelli D, Costas R, Ioannidis JP, Meta-assessment of bias in science. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017;114: 3714–3719. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1618569114 28320937
9. Chavalarias D, Ioannidis JP, Science mapping analysis characterizes 235 biases in biomedical research. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63: 1205–15. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.12.011 20400265
10. Fanelli D, How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS ONE. 2009;4: e5738. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0005738 19478950
11. Ioannidis JPA, The reproducibility wars: successful, unsuccessful, uninterpretable, exact, conceptual, triangulated, contested replication. Clin Chem. 2017;63: 943–945. doi: 10.1373/clinchem.2017.271965 28298413
12. Baker M, 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. Nature. 2016;533: 452–4. doi: 10.1038/533452a 27225100
13. Ioannidis JP, The mass production of redundant, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Milbank Q. 2016;94: 485–514. doi: 10.1111/1468-0009.12210 27620683
14. Herbert DL, Barnett AG, Clarke P, Graves N, On the time spent preparing grant proposals: an observational study of Australian researchers. BMJ Open. 2013;3: e002800. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002800 23793700
15. Kovanis M, Porcher R, Ravaud P, Trinquart L, The global burden of journal peer review in the biomedical literature: strong imbalance in the collective enterprise. PLoS ONE. 2016;11: e0166387. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0166387 27832157
16. Börner K, Klavans R, Patek M, Zoss AM, Biberstine JR, Light RP, Larivière V, Boyack KW, Design and update of a classification system: the UCSD map of science. PLoS ONE. 2012;7: e39464. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0039464 22808037
17. Grace K, Salvatier J, Dafoe A, Zhang B, Evans O, When will AI exceed human performance? Evidence from AI experts. arXiv. 2017;1705.08807v2 [cs.AI].