Skip to main content
Log in

Research accomplishments that are too good to be true

Intensive Care Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Enserick M. Scientific ethics. Final report on Stapel also blames field as a whole. Science 338:1270–1271

  2. Ioannidis JP, Trikalinos TA, Zintzaras E (2006) Extreme between-study homogeneity in meta-analyses could offer useful insights. J Clin Epidemiol 59:1023–1032

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bhattacharjeet V. The mind of a con man. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/magazine/diederik-stapels-audacious-academic-fraud.html?_r=0. Accessed August 29, 2013

  4. Wise J (2013) Boldt: the great pretender. BMJ 346:f1738

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Boldt J, Müller M, Mentges D, Papsdorf M, Hempelmann G (1998) Volume therapy in the critically ill: is there a difference? Intensive Care Med 24(1):28–36

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Fanelli D (2009) How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS ONE 4:e5738

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Fanelli D (2010) “Positive” results increase down the Hierarchy of the Sciences. PLoS ONE 5:e10068

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Wislar JS, Flanagin A, Fontanarosa PB et al (2012) Honorary and ghost authorship in high impact biomedical journals: a cross-sectional survey. BMJ 343:d6128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. John LK, Loewenstein G, Prelec D (2012) Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth-telling. Psychol Sci. doi:10.1177/0956797611430953

    Google Scholar 

  10. Vul E, Harris C, Winkielman P, Pashler H (2009) Puzzlingly high correlations in fMRI studies of emotion, personality, and social cognition. Persp Psychol Sci 4:274–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Fanelli D (2013) Redefine misconduct as distorted reporting. Nature 494:149

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Alsheikh-Ali AA, Qureshi W, Al-Mallah MH, Ioannidis JP (2011) Public availability of published research data in high-impact journals. PLoS ONE 6:e24357

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Doshi P, Jefferson T, Del Mar C (2012) The imperative to share clinical study reports: recommendations from the Tamiflu experience. PLoS Med 9:e1001201

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ioannidis JP (2012) The importance of potential studies that have not existed and registration of observational data sets. JAMA 308:575–576

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Ioannidis JP (2013) Scientific inbreeding and same-team replication: type D personality as an example. J Psychosom Res 73:408–410

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflicts of interest

The author declares that there is no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John P. A. Ioannidis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ioannidis, J.P.A. Research accomplishments that are too good to be true. Intensive Care Med 40, 99–101 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-013-3100-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-013-3100-z

Keywords

Navigation