P hacking in biology: An open secret
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.
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
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.
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 use of statistical methods has been demonstrated to be suboptimal in some fields.
“The use of statistical methods has been demonstrated to be suboptimal in some fields.”
From How to design preclinical studies in nanomedicine and cell therapy to maximize the prospects of clinical translation (2018) · cites this paper as [23]
P-hacking has high prevalence.
“P-hacking22,23 (where investigators perform multiple analyses sequentially, for example by adding more samples or excluding some potential outliers until the desired thresholds of statistical significance are achieved)”
From How to design preclinical studies in nanomedicine and cell therapy to maximize the prospects of clinical translation (2018) · cites this paper as [23]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Scientific method: Statistical errors
Nuzzo, R. (2014) · Nature · doi:10.1038/506150a · Cited by 1,536 · see citing works
Biotic interactions mediate soil microbial feedbacks to climate change
Crowther, T. W., Thomas, S. M., Maynard, D. S., Baldrián, P., Covey, K., Frey, S. D., van Diepen, L. T. A., & Bradford, M. A. (2015) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1502956112 · Cited by 262 · see citing works
Hararuk, O., Smith, M. J., & Luo, Y. (2014) · Global Change Biology · doi:10.1111/gcb.12827 · Cited by 118 · see citing works
Smith, R. A., Levine, T. R., Lachlan, K. A., & Fediuk, T. A. (2002) · Human Communication Research · doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00821.x · Cited by 77 · see citing works
A call for statistical editors in ecology
von Wehrden, H., Schultner, J., & Abson, D. J. (2015) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2015.03.013 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Ioannidis, J. P. A., Kim, B. Y. S., & Trounson, A. (2018) · Nature Biomedical Engineering · doi:10.1038/s41551-018-0314-y · Cited by 175 · see citing works
- Authors
- Veresoglou, S. D.
- Affiliations
- Berlin Brandenburg Institute of Advanced Biodiversity Research (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Veresoglou, Stavros D.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Publisher
- National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2015-08-25
- Volume
- 112
- Issue
- 37
- Pages
- E5112-3
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- PMC
- PMC4577170
- OpenAlex
- W2128309487
- Cited by
- 7
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2015: 1
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Dahlem Centre of Plant Sciences, Freie Universität Berlin (no designated grant)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Keywords
- p-hacking, publication bias, statistical significance, research reproducibility, false positives, biology research
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Feedback, Fungi, Models, Theoretical, Soil Microbiology, Food Chain, Isopoda, Climate Change
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
