Cited by 105Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsAcademic Publishing and Open AccessMethodologies in Health Research and Practice

Methodology over metrics: current scientific standards are a disservice to patients and society

Open access
Van Calster, Ben, Wynants, Laure, Riley, Richard D, van Smeden, Maarten, Collins, Gary S·2021·Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Abstract

Covid-19 research made it painfully clear that the scandal of poor medical research, as denounced by Altman in 1994, persists today. The overall quality of medical research remains poor, despite longstanding criticisms. The problems are well known, but the research community fails to properly address them. We suggest that most problems stem from an underlying paradox: although methodology is undeniably the backbone of high-quality and responsible research, science consistently undervalues methodology. The focus remains more on the destination (research claims and metrics) than on the journey. Notwithstanding, research should serve society more than the reputation of those involved. While we notice that many initiatives are being established to improve components of the research cycle, these initiatives are too disjointed. The overall system is monolithic and slow to adapt. We assert that top-down action is needed from journals, universities, funders and governments to break the cycle and put methodology first. These actions should involve the widespread adoption of registered reports, balanced research funding between innovative, incremental and methodological research projects, full recognition and demystification of peer review, improved methodological review of reports, adherence to reporting guidelines, and investment in methodological education and research. Currently, the scientific enterprise is doing a major disservice to patients and society.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.05.018

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • These challenges may be compounded by researchers not receiving sufficient training in statistical inference and research methodology.

    “These challenges may be compounded by researchers not receiving sufficient training in statistical inference and research methodology”

    From Investigating the replicability of preclinical cancer biology (2021) · cites this paper as Van Calster et al., 2021

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 56 · Cited by 105

Authors
Van Calster, B., Wynants, L., Riley, R. D., van Smeden, M., & Collins, G. S.
Affiliations
  • Maastricht University (NL)
  • Keele University (GB)
Venue
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-10
Volume
138
Pages
219-226
ISSN
0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3165164318
Cited by
105
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 11
FWCI
10.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Keele Research Repository (Keele University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Lirias (KU Leuven) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • FWO
  • KU Leuven Research Council
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Methodologies in Health Research and Practice
Keywords
research methodology, research quality, research metrics, peer review, research funding, reporting guidelines, research culture, scientific standards
MeSH terms
COVID-19, Humans, Research Design, Biomedical Research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review