Bias in genetic association studies and impact factor
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
The extent to which a study overestimates true effects is positively correlated with the impact factor of a journal.
“and the extent to which a study overestimates true effects is positively correlated with the impact factor of a journal (30).”
From Statistical and Methodological Considerations for the Interpretation of Intranasal Oxytocin Studies (2016) · cites this paper as [30]
False positives may heavily contaminate the neuroscience literature, and this problem may affect prominent journals at least as much or more.
“Given that these publishing biases are pervasive across scientific practice, it is possible that false positives heavily contaminate the neuroscience literature as well, and this problem may affect at least as much, if not even more so, the most prominent journals 9,10 .”
From Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience (2013) · cites this paper as [10]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 5 · Cited by 60
- Authors
- Munafò, M. R., Stothart, G., & Flint, J.
- Affiliations
- University of Bristol (GB)
- ORCID
- Stothart, G
- Venue
- Molecular Psychiatry
- Published
- 2009-01-21
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 119-120
- ISSN
- 1359-4184 (ISSN-L)
- 1476-5578
- OpenAlex
- W1987636676
- Cited by
- 60
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 6.22
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Molecular Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
- Keywords
- genetic association studies, publication bias, impact factor, research bias, peer review, negative results
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Epidemiologic Factors, Bias, Genetic Predisposition to Disease, Journal Impact Factor
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
