ABOVE: © ISTOCK.COM, BLACKJACK3D
John Ioannidis is a Stanford University epidemiologist known for his blunt critiques of the scientific enterprise, such as the 2005 paper “Why Most Published Research Findings are False.” In a new report out today (November 20) in PLOS Biology, he and colleagues follow up on an earlier study in which they found authors weren’t so good on measures of transparency and reproducibility, such as sharing their data and protocols and disclosing funders.
The new analysis, which scrutinizes 149 randomly selected biomedical research papers published between 2015 and 2017, finds some improvements. We spoke with Ioannidis to get his take on the results.
The Scientist: What did you set out to do in this latest study, and what, to you, are its main takeaways?
John Ioannidis: We had previously assessed the same indicators in papers published in the biomedical literature from 2000 to 2014. We wanted to ...
