The DOI matches its Crossref record; 52 of the 52 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Why Current Publication Practices May Distort Science
Open accessAbstract
DOAJ is a unique and extensive index of diverse open access journals from around the world, driven by a growing community, committed to ensuring quality content is freely available online for everyone.
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
Self-citationThe Logic of Scientific Discovery
(2013) · A Realist Theory of Science · doi:10.4324/9780203090732-9 · Cited by 7,731
A perspective on judgment and choice: mapping bounded rationality.
Kahneman, D. (2003) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.58.9.697 · Cited by 5,540
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×
“Several factors may predict irreproducibility (small effects, small studies, “hot” fields, strong interests, large databases, flexible statistics) [19], but claiming that a specific study is wrong is a difficult, charged decision.”
Self-citationPublication bias in clinical research
Easterbrook, P. J., Gopalan, R., Berlin, J. A., & Matthews, D. R. (1991) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/0140-6736(91)90201-y · Cited by 3,109 · cited 1×
“In the basic biological sciences, statistical considerations are secondary or nonexistent, results entirely unpredicted by hypotheses are celebrated, and there are few formal rules for reproducibility [”
Toward a new economics of science
Partha, D., & David, P. A. (1994) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/0048-7333(94)01002-1 · Cited by 2,448
Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy
Turner, E. H., Matthews, A. M., Linardatos, E., Tell, R. A., & Rosenthal, R. (2008) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmsa065779 · Cited by 2,435
Learning from the Behavior of Others: Conformity, Fads, and Informational Cascades
Bikhchandani, S., Hirshleifer, D., & Welch, I. (1998) · Journal of Economic Perspectives · doi:10.1257/jep.12.3.151 · Cited by 1,915
Priorities in Scientific Discovery: A Chapter in the Sociology of Science
Merton, R. K. (1957) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2089193 · Cited by 1,593
Why Most Discovered True Associations Are Inflated
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2008) · Epidemiology · doi:10.1097/ede.0b013e31818131e7 · Cited by 1,495
Self-citation
Cited by
Ellis, P. D. (2010) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511761676 · Cited by 2,461
Nosek (2012) · doi:10.1177/1745691612459058 · Cited by 1,301
Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries
Fanelli, D. (2012) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0494-7 · Cited by 1,248
A catalogue of reporting guidelines for health research
Simera, I., Moher, D., Hoey, J., Schulz, K. F., & Altman, D. G. (2010) · European Journal of Clinical Investigation · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2362.2009.02234.x · Cited by 1,047
How to Make More Published Research True
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2014) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001747 · Cited by 760
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Young, N. S., Ioannidis, J. P. A., & Al-Ubaydli, O.
- Venue
- PLoS Medicine
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2008-10-07
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- e201
- ISSN
- 1549-1277 (ISSN-L)
- 1549-1676
- OpenAlex
- W2096656075
- Cited by
- 502
- References
- 52
- FWCI
- 63.77
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Why Current Publication Practices May Distort Science. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050201
- The paper
- Young, N. S., Ioannidis, J. P. A., & Al-Ubaydli, O. (2008). Why Current Publication Practices May Distort Science. PLoS Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050201
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.
