Advertisement

Intensive Care Medicine

, Volume 40, Issue 1, pp 99–101 | Cite as

Research accomplishments that are too good to be true

  • John P. A. Ioannidis
What's New in Intensive Care

We are all proud of successes in scientific research. Society at large expects to reap great benefits from these breakthroughs. However, sometimes research accomplishments are just too good to be true: single studies with extravagant results, investigators with too spectacular sudden changes in their career trajectory, or even whole scientific fields where exaggeration becomes a spurious norm. The boundaries between these three levels are hazy, because multiple single studies build investigator CVs and multiple investigators build scientific fields. How do we differentiate spurious success from true excellence? Let us examine a few vignettes of different situations.

Vignette 1: A famous professor states (verbatim) in his inaugural speech on being installed in a prestigious university: “The freedom we have in the design of our experiments is so enormous that when an experiment does not give us what we are looking for, we blame the experiment, not our theory. (At least, that is the way...

Keywords

Legalistic Pressure Research Accomplishment Report Correlation Coefficient Hydroxylethyl Questionable Research Practice 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Conflicts of interest

The author declares that there is no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Enserick M. Scientific ethics. Final report on Stapel also blames field as a whole. Science 338:1270–1271Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ioannidis JP, Trikalinos TA, Zintzaras E (2006) Extreme between-study homogeneity in meta-analyses could offer useful insights. J Clin Epidemiol 59:1023–1032PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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. 4.
    Wise J (2013) Boldt: the great pretender. BMJ 346:f1738PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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):28–36PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fanelli D (2009) How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS ONE 4:e5738PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fanelli D (2010) “Positive” results increase down the Hierarchy of the Sciences. PLoS ONE 5:e10068PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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:d6128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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. 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 4:274–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fanelli D (2013) Redefine misconduct as distorted reporting. Nature 494:149PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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:e24357PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Doshi P, Jefferson T, Del Mar C (2012) The imperative to share clinical study reports: recommendations from the Tamiflu experience. PLoS Med 9:e1001201PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ioannidis JP (2012) The importance of potential studies that have not existed and registration of observational data sets. JAMA 308:575–576PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ioannidis JP (2013) Scientific inbreeding and same-team replication: type D personality as an example. J Psychosom Res 73:408–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg and ESICM 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Medicine, Stanford Prevention Research CenterStanford University School of MedicineStanfordUSA
  2. 2.Department of Health Research and PolicyStanford University School of MedicineStanfordUSA
  3. 3.Department of StatisticsStanford University School of Humanities and SciencesStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations