The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Reproducible research can still be wrong: Adopting a prevention approach
Open accessAbstract
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), a peer reviewed journal of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) - an authoritative source of high-impact, original research that broadly spans the biological, physical, and social sciences.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 · Cited by 10,505
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005) · CHANCE · doi:10.1080/09332480.2005.10722754 · Cited by 4,702 · cited 1×
“Concerns among scientists about both have gained significant traction recently due in part to a statistical argument that suggested most published scientific results may be false positives (2).”
BackgroundReproducible research in computational science
Peng, R. D. (2011) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1213847 · Cited by 1,449 · cited 1×
“The replicability of a study is the chance that an independent experiment targeting the same scientific question will produce a consistent result (1).”
BackgroundSelf-citationAn estimate of the science-wise false discovery rate and application to the top medical literature
Jager, L. R., & Leek, J. T. (2014) · Biostatistics · doi:10.1093/biostatistics/kxt007 · Cited by 179
Self-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- 10.1214/09-AOAS291 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1093/cje/bet075 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1186/gb-2010-11-8-r86 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.7717/peerj.589 · DOI
Cited by
Harmonization of multi-site diffusion tensor imaging data
Fortin, J.-P., Parker, D., Tunç, B., Watanabe, T., Elliott, M. A., Ruparel, K., Roalf, D. R., Satterthwaite, T. D., Gur, R. C., Gur, R. E., et al. (2017) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.08.047 · Cited by 1,261
Leakage and the reproducibility crisis in machine-learning-based science
Kapoor, S., & Narayanan, A. (2023) · Patterns · doi:10.1016/j.patter.2023.100804 · Cited by 1,387
“We define a research finding as reproducible if the code and data used to obtain the finding are available and the data are correctly analyzed.(4,7,8) This is a broader definition than computational reproducibility, when the results in a paper can be replicated using the exact code and dataset provided by the authors…”
MethodO'Leary, S. J., Puritz, J. B., Willis, S. C., Hollenbeck, C. M., & Portnoy, D. S. (2018) · Molecular Ecology · doi:10.1111/mec.14792 · Cited by 434
Reproducibility and replicability of rodent phenotyping in preclinical studies
Kafkafi, N., Agassi, J., Chesler, E. J., Crabbe, J. C., Crusio, W. E., Eilam, D., Gerlai, R., Golani, I., Gomez-Marin, A., Heller, R., et al. (2018) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.01.003 · Cited by 215
Reproducibility in systems biology modelling
Tiwari, K., Kananathan, S., Roberts, M. G., Meyer, J. P., Sharif Shohan, M. U., Xavier, A., Maire, M., Zyoud, A., Men, J., Ng, S., et al. (2021) · Molecular Systems Biology · doi:10.15252/msb.20209982 · Cited by 131
Metadata
- Authors
- Leek, J. T., & Peng, R. D.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2015-02-10
- Volume
- 112
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1645-1646
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- OpenAlex
- W1622128722
- Cited by
- 193
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 53.39
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Reproducible research can still be wrong: Adopting a prevention approach. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.1421412111
- The paper
- Leek, J. T., & Peng, R. D. (2015). Reproducible research can still be wrong: Adopting a prevention approach. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1421412111
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
